Comments on: Lawmakers Slam Tanker RFP http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/27/lawmakers-slam-tanker-rfp/ Online Defense and Acquisition Journal Thu, 02 Sep 2010 20:11:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Old391http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/27/lawmakers-slam-tanker-rfp/comment-page-1/#comment-16061 Old391 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:57:21 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=10904#comment-16061 The Air Force pilots will learn to fly the airbus. They are so use to the linkage system on the KC-135 and KC-10 they might like the newer system. Also I think they would build back ups into the Air Bus Tanker. Remeber the KC-767 also has a fly by wire system. It will take a little time to get use to it. The Air Force pilots will learn to fly the airbus. They are so use to the linkage system on the KC-135 and KC-10 they might like the newer system. Also I think they would build back ups into the Air Bus Tanker. Remeber the KC-767 also has a fly by wire system. It will take a little time to get use to it.

]]> By: pfcemhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/27/lawmakers-slam-tanker-rfp/comment-page-1/#comment-15906 pfcem Tue, 03 Nov 2009 03:49:03 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=10904#comment-15906 You STILL do not get it & it has become ABUNDANTLY clear that you NEVER will get it. You STILL do not get it & it has become ABUNDANTLY clear that you NEVER will get it.

]]> By: Colehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/27/lawmakers-slam-tanker-rfp/comment-page-1/#comment-15901 Cole Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:02:41 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=10904#comment-15901 And yet 4 other nations have chosen the A330 and figured out how to train their pilots. Airliner companies have found ways to train their pilots, Considering the numbers involved and the scarcity and rising cost of fuel, methinks the USAF should find more efficient ways to spend our tax dollars. And yet 4 other nations have chosen the A330 and figured out how to train their pilots. Airliner companies have found ways to train their pilots,

Considering the numbers involved and the scarcity and rising cost of fuel, methinks the USAF should find more efficient ways to spend our tax dollars.

]]> By: Colehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/27/lawmakers-slam-tanker-rfp/comment-page-1/#comment-15900 Cole Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:58:24 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=10904#comment-15900 pfcem, I assure you the numbers are accurate. Hmm, using fuel consumption rates from the Conklin and DeDecker study (that Boeing paid for) lets account for money/fuel being spent just to get to and from the example anchor mission 1000nm from base while supporting 3 hours of tanker station time: Twelve B767 @ 1722 gals/hr x 60 hours of fuel (12 a/c x 5 hrs) = 103,320 gals consumed OR Eight A330 @ 2139 gals/hr x 44 hours of fuel (8 a/c x 5.5 hrs) = 94,116 gals consumed OR Four B767 @ 1722 gals/hr x 28 hours of fuel (4 a/c x 7 hrs) = 48,216 gals consumed Four A330 @ 2139 gals x 20 hours of fuel (4 a/c x 5 hrs) = 42,780 gals consumed Total.............................................................................................90,996 gals consumed by 4 B767 + 4 A330 That is 90,996 gals x $42/gal according to Ashton Carter = $3, 821,832 spent compared to $4,339,440 spent for the 12 B767 option....nearly half a million dollars saved Now keep in mind it could just as easily be one B767 and one A330 working as a team at many different locations and the savings would still exist. pfcem, I assure you the numbers are accurate. Hmm, using fuel consumption rates from the Conklin and DeDecker study (that Boeing paid for) lets account for money/fuel being spent just to get to and from the example anchor mission 1000nm from base while supporting 3 hours of tanker station time:

Twelve B767 @ 1722 gals/hr x 60 hours of fuel (12 a/c x 5 hrs) = 103,320 gals consumed

OR

Eight A330 @ 2139 gals/hr x 44 hours of fuel (8 a/c x 5.5 hrs) = 94,116 gals consumed

OR

Four B767 @ 1722 gals/hr x 28 hours of fuel (4 a/c x 7 hrs) = 48,216 gals consumed
Four A330 @ 2139 gals x 20 hours of fuel (4 a/c x 5 hrs) = 42,780 gals consumed
Total.….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….90,996 gals consumed by 4 B767 + 4 A330

That is 90,996 gals x $42/gal according to Ashton Carter = $3, 821,832 spent compared to $4,339,440 spent for the 12 B767 option.…nearly half a million dollars saved

Now keep in mind it could just as easily be one B767 and one A330 working as a team at many different locations and the savings would still exist.

]]> By: pfcemhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/27/lawmakers-slam-tanker-rfp/comment-page-1/#comment-15896 pfcem Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:33:29 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=10904#comment-15896 Nice made up numbers with no bearing on reality. Thanks for so clearly demonstating your lack of understanding of real world tanker operations. Nice made up numbers with no bearing on reality.

Thanks for so clearly demonstating your lack of understanding of real world tanker operations.

]]> By: TankerPukehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/27/lawmakers-slam-tanker-rfp/comment-page-1/#comment-15893 TankerPuke Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:07:33 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=10904#comment-15893 A couple comments: -Aerial Refueling and military missions in general are not "efficient" operations...they are "effects based" operations, so any talk of "more capability" is just "more waste" in reality. The receivers don't line up like a queue at Wal-Mart, they are spread out all over the battlespace. So you need booms in the sky to cover that. KC-135Rs come home routinely with over double their fuel reserves, so it's clear the war is not screaming for more fuel per boom, just more booms. -"Fly Off" is something EADS should fear. If the USAF operational community got their hands on that electric A330 jet with its non-interlinked and non-backfed controls and throttles that just sit there, they'd freak out. How are USAF instructors going to monitor student inputs when the Airbus controls don't move together? How are Aircraft Commanders going to "ride the controls" of the newbie CoPilots landing in a crosswind when they can't feel the other pilot's inputs? Nothing moves in an A330 flight deck, whether it's the autopilot or the other pilot. When pilots both try to fly the jet, the computers average out their inputs and neither pilot feels the other guy's inputs. Try instructing receiver aerial refueling with those controls. The scary fact is that Airbus' flight deck control philosophy is completely unfit for USAF operations and a Fly Off would prove it. Even a Simulator Fly Off would do the trick, and when the USAF evaluator pilots got into the Airbus non-normal procedures manuals...Whoa Nelly, that'd be the end of it. A nightmare compared to the traditional Boeing flight controls and abnormal ops procedures. Then consider the millions of lines of codes that truly fly the Airbus airplane, not the pilots. Was all that code written for the myriad of contingencies our military pilots face? Tactical airfield entry, receiver and tanker refueling, defensive maneuvers, and on and on. Those jets were coded for vanilla up-over-and-down profiles. Using them for tankers would just lead us to an endless and scary flight software update for each new problem identified. At least in Boeing fly-by-wire aircraft there is a simple overhead switch to kill computer augmentation and fly the thing like a Cessna. Again, the A330 is not fit for the USAF Tanker role. A couple comments:
–Aerial Refueling and military missions in general are not “efficient” operations…they are “effects based” operations, so any talk of “more capability” is just “more waste” in reality. The receivers don’t line up like a queue at Wal-Mart, they are spread out all over the battlespace. So you need booms in the sky to cover that. KC-135Rs come home routinely with over double their fuel reserves, so it’s clear the war is not screaming for more fuel per boom, just more booms.
-“Fly Off” is something EADS should fear. If the USAF operational community got their hands on that electric A330 jet with its non-interlinked and non-backfed controls and throttles that just sit there, they’d freak out. How are USAF instructors going to monitor student inputs when the Airbus controls don’t move together? How are Aircraft Commanders going to “ride the controls” of the newbie CoPilots landing in a crosswind when they can’t feel the other pilot’s inputs? Nothing moves in an A330 flight deck, whether it’s the autopilot or the other pilot. When pilots both try to fly the jet, the computers average out their inputs and neither pilot feels the other guy’s inputs. Try instructing receiver aerial refueling with those controls. The scary fact is that Airbus’ flight deck control philosophy is completely unfit for USAF operations and a Fly Off would prove it. Even a Simulator Fly Off would do the trick, and when the USAF evaluator pilots got into the Airbus non-normal procedures manuals…Whoa Nelly, that’d be the end of it. A nightmare compared to the traditional Boeing flight controls and abnormal ops procedures. Then consider the millions of lines of codes that truly fly the Airbus airplane, not the pilots. Was all that code written for the myriad of contingencies our military pilots face? Tactical airfield entry, receiver and tanker refueling, defensive maneuvers, and on and on. Those jets were coded for vanilla up-over-and-down profiles. Using them for tankers would just lead us to an endless and scary flight software update for each new problem identified. At least in Boeing fly-by-wire aircraft there is a simple overhead switch to kill computer augmentation and fly the thing like a Cessna. Again, the A330 is not fit for the USAF Tanker role.

]]> By: Colehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/27/lawmakers-slam-tanker-rfp/comment-page-1/#comment-15875 Cole Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:02:18 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=10904#comment-15875 But wait, a split buy offers the best alternative of all: * Four B767 offloading 117,000 lbs 0100-0230 hrs * Four A330 topping off the four B767 at around 0230 hrs AND being available to fuel several fighters or one larger aircraft between 0215-0315 * Same four B767 offloading 117,000 lbs 0230-0400 hrs Total of 4 B767 and 4 A330 required supporting the most overall fuel offload and probe numbers during the middle hour while burning less fuel than 8 A330s But wait, a split buy offers the best alternative of all:

* Four B767 offloading 117,000 lbs 0100–0230 hrs
* Four A330 topping off the four B767 at around 0230 hrs AND being available to fuel several fighters or one larger aircraft between 0215–0315
* Same four B767 offloading 117,000 lbs 0230–0400 hrs
Total of 4 B767 and 4 A330 required supporting the most overall fuel offload and probe numbers during the middle hour while burning less fuel than 8 A330s

]]> By: Colehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/27/lawmakers-slam-tanker-rfp/comment-page-1/#comment-15874 Cole Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:00:55 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=10904#comment-15874 Given a mission to maintain 4 KC aircraft on station at 1000 nm radius offloading 78,000 lbs per hour (similar to OEF) over a 3 hour period, compare: * Four B767 offloading 78,000 lbs 0100-0200 hrs * Four different B767 offloading 78,000 lbs 0200-0300 hrs * Four different B767 offloading 78,000 lbs 0300-0400 hrs Total of 12 B767 are required to fly the RFP profile of one hour on station. The result is that 48 combined hours of fuel are wasted having 12 aircraft fly “four hours round trip” to and from the anchor location OR * Four A330 offloading 117,000 lbs 0100-0230 * Four different A330 offloading 117,000 lbs 0230-0400 Total of 8 A330 required burning less fuel than 12 B767. Only 32 combined hours of fuel wasted having eight aircraft fly “four hours round trip” to and from the anchor location…but at slightly higher fuel consumption per aircraft Given a mission to maintain 4 KC aircraft on station at 1000 nm radius offloading 78,000 lbs per hour (similar to OEF) over a 3 hour period, compare:

* Four B767 offloading 78,000 lbs 0100–0200 hrs
* Four different B767 offloading 78,000 lbs 0200–0300 hrs
* Four different B767 offloading 78,000 lbs 0300–0400 hrs
Total of 12 B767 are required to fly the RFP profile of one hour on station. The result is that 48 combined hours of fuel are wasted having 12 aircraft fly “four hours round trip” to and from the anchor location

OR

* Four A330 offloading 117,000 lbs 0100–0230
* Four different A330 offloading 117,000 lbs 0230–0400
Total of 8 A330 required burning less fuel than 12 B767. Only 32 combined hours of fuel wasted having eight aircraft fly “four hours round trip” to and from the anchor location…but at slightly higher fuel consumption per aircraft

]]> By: Colehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/27/lawmakers-slam-tanker-rfp/comment-page-1/#comment-15873 Cole Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:58:18 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=10904#comment-15873 But the A330 carries far more pallets. And the threat of TBMs still requires airfields farther from front lines. So yes, advantages exist in having more aircraft per smaller airfield just as advantages exist for A330s better fuel offload at 1000nm and beyond. Either aircraft can use 7000' airfields. If you look at the RFP mission profile which may or may not exemplify typical past mission profiles, it most certainly isn’t efficient KC-X employment. At 1000 NM radius, you have aircraft flying 2 hours out to a location, refueling for an hour, and then two hours back to base, while retaining 2 hours of fuel as a reserve. In other words the aircraft carries around 6 hours of fuel just to offload fuel over one short hour. Why waste fuel sending excessive aircraft to stay on station for just one hour? Is a two hour reserve required for KC aircraft able to be refueled mid-air by others accompanying KC-X should one be a bit short? But the A330 carries far more pallets. And the threat of TBMs still requires airfields farther from front lines. So yes, advantages exist in having more aircraft per smaller airfield just as advantages exist for A330s better fuel offload at 1000nm and beyond. Either aircraft can use 7000′ airfields.

If you look at the RFP mission profile which may or may not exemplify typical past mission profiles, it most certainly isn’t efficient KC-X employment. At 1000 NM radius, you have aircraft flying 2 hours out to a location, refueling for an hour, and then two hours back to base, while retaining 2 hours of fuel as a reserve. In other words the aircraft carries around 6 hours of fuel just to offload fuel over one short hour.

Why waste fuel sending excessive aircraft to stay on station for just one hour? Is a two hour reserve required for KC aircraft able to be refueled mid-air by others accompanying KC-X should one be a bit short?

]]> By: pfcemhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/27/lawmakers-slam-tanker-rfp/comment-page-1/#comment-15865 pfcem Sun, 01 Nov 2009 04:13:40 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=10904#comment-15865 Cole, The KC-767 IS a multi-mission tanker (including being able to refuel via boom or drogue IN THE SAME FLIGHT). It is a better tanker than the KC-135R AND it is a better airlift aircraft than the C-17 (at the types of airlift the USAF/DOD intends to use them for). The threat of TBMs is one of the reasons WHY the KC-X is intended to operate from larger numbers of smaller airfields (hence the 7000' runway requirement) - another being improved effectiveness/efficiency. The fewer number of bases your forces operate from the GREATER the potential damage caused by even ONE TBM. Cole,

The KC-767 IS a multi-mission tanker (including being able to refuel via boom or drogue IN THE SAME FLIGHT). It is a better tanker than the KC-135R AND it is a better airlift aircraft than the C-17 (at the types of airlift the USAF/DOD intends to use them for).

The threat of TBMs is one of the reasons WHY the KC-X is intended to operate from larger numbers of smaller airfields (hence the 7000′ runway requirement) — another being improved effectiveness/efficiency. The fewer number of bases your forces operate from the GREATER the potential damage caused by even ONE TBM.

]]> By: pfcemhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/27/lawmakers-slam-tanker-rfp/comment-page-1/#comment-15864 pfcem Sun, 01 Nov 2009 04:13:12 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=10904#comment-15864 irtusk, Ted Stevens' inserted line item WAS IN RESPONSE TO (then) Secretary of the Air Force Roche's letter!!! There was no A330 tanker of any kind in 1996. The relevance of 1996 is that THAT is the year the USAF/DOD STARTED its efforts to recapitalize its tanker fleet. It has already been explained to you who knows how many times why the lease tanker were not required to meet all 26 USAF requirement AND that a full capability/spec KC-767 that WOULD meet all 26 requirements was to be developed during the lease. Which does not change the fact that the KC-330 did not meet even the lowered requirements of the tanker lease. The POINT is that NG/EADS is not at all interrested in proposing a product competative for what the USAF/DOD has made clear it wants but rather has a product it wants to sell that it knows is not what the USAF/DOD has made clear it wants - a product in fact that the USAF/DOD has rejected. THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE IS "Northrop won't rule out boycott of tanker rematch". Not ruling out a boycott is simply a PC way of threatening to do so. irtusk,

Ted Stevens’ inserted line item WAS IN RESPONSE TO (then) Secretary of the Air Force Roche’s letter!!!

There was no A330 tanker of any kind in 1996. The relevance of 1996 is that THAT is the year the USAF/DOD STARTED its efforts to recapitalize its tanker fleet.

It has already been explained to you who knows how many times why the lease tanker were not required to meet all 26 USAF requirement AND that a full capability/spec KC-767 that WOULD meet all 26 requirements was to be developed during the lease. Which does not change the fact that the KC-330 did not meet even the lowered requirements of the tanker lease.

The POINT is that NG/EADS is not at all interrested in proposing a product competative for what the USAF/DOD has made clear it wants but rather has a product it wants to sell that it knows is not what the USAF/DOD has made clear it wants — a product in fact that the USAF/DOD has rejected.

THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE IS “Northrop won’t rule out boycott of tanker rematch”. Not ruling out a boycott is simply a PC way of threatening to do so.

]]> By: pfcemhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/27/lawmakers-slam-tanker-rfp/comment-page-1/#comment-15862 pfcem Sun, 01 Nov 2009 04:07:29 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=10904#comment-15862 irtusk,You have abslutely ZERO sense of history. Ted Stevens' inserted line item WAS IN RESPONSE TO (then) Secretary of the Air Force Roche's letter!!! And again, even with the specific language authorizing the 767 (as the USAF ASKED FOR), the USAF/DOD still sent out a RFP to Aurbus.There was no A330 tanker of any kind in 1996. The relevance of 1996 is that THAT is the year the USAF/DOD STARTED its efforts to recapitalize its tanker fleet. NOT 2006, NOT 2002, NOT EVEN 2000. 1996!!! The USAF/DOD had already chosen the 767 as its preferred option some time PRIOR to Oct 2001.Good God man. It has already been explained to you who knows how many times why the lease tanker were not required to meet all 26 USAF requirement AND that a full capability/spec KC-767 that WOULD meet all 26 requirements was to be developed during the lease. Which does not change the fact that the KC-330 did not meet even the lowered requirements of the tanker lease.The POINT is that NG/EADS is not at all interrested in proposing a product competative for what the USAF/DOD has made clear it wants but rather has a product it wants to sell that it knows is not what the USAF/DOD has made clear it wants - a product in fact that the USAF/DOD has rejected.THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE IS "Northrop won't rule out boycott of tanker rematch" & THE VERY 1ST SENTENCE STARTS "Northrop Grumman Corp ( NOC - news - people ) left open the possibility it might boycott the Pentagon's multi-billion-dollar aerial tanker recompetition". Not ruling out a boycott is simply a PC way of threatening to do so.***Cole,The KC-767 IS a multi-mission tanker (including being able to refuel via boom or drogue IN THE SAME FLIGHT). It is a better tanker than the KC-135R AND it is a better airlift aircraft than the C-17 (at the types of airlift the USAF/DOD intends to use them for).The threat of TBMs is one of the reasons WHY the KC-X is intended to operate from larger numbers of smaller airfields (hence the 7000' runway requirement) - another being improved effectiveness/efficiency. The fewer number of bases your forces operate from the GREATER the potential damage caused by even ONE TBM. irtusk,

You have abslutely ZERO sense of history. Ted Stevens’ inserted line item WAS IN RESPONSE TO (then) Secretary of the Air Force Roche’s letter!!! And again, even with the specific language authorizing the 767 (as the USAF ASKED FOR), the USAF/DOD still sent out a RFP to Aurbus.

There was no A330 tanker of any kind in 1996. The relevance of 1996 is that THAT is the year the USAF/DOD STARTED its efforts to recapitalize its tanker fleet. NOT 2006, NOT 2002, NOT EVEN 2000. 1996!!! The USAF/DOD had already chosen the 767 as its preferred option some time PRIOR to Oct 2001.

Good God man. It has already been explained to you who knows how many times why the lease tanker were not required to meet all 26 USAF requirement AND that a full capability/spec KC-767 that WOULD meet all 26 requirements was to be developed during the lease. Which does not change the fact that the KC-330 did not meet even the lowered requirements of the tanker lease.

The POINT is that NG/EADS is not at all interrested in proposing a product competative for what the USAF/DOD has made clear it wants but rather has a product it wants to sell that it knows is not what the USAF/DOD has made clear it wants — a product in fact that the USAF/DOD has rejected.

THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE IS “Northrop won’t rule out boycott of tanker rematch” & THE VERY 1ST SENTENCE STARTS “Northrop Grumman Corp ( NOC — news — people ) left open the possibility it might boycott the Pentagon’s multi-billion-dollar aerial tanker recompetition”. Not ruling out a boycott is simply a PC way of threatening to do so.

***

Cole,

The KC-767 IS a multi-mission tanker (including being able to refuel via boom or drogue IN THE SAME FLIGHT). It is a better tanker than the KC-135R AND it is a better airlift aircraft than the C-17 (at the types of airlift the USAF/DOD intends to use them for).

The threat of TBMs is one of the reasons WHY the KC-X is intended to operate from larger numbers of smaller airfields (hence the 7000′ runway requirement) — another being improved effectiveness/efficiency. The fewer number of bases your forces operate from the GREATER the potential damage caused by even ONE TBM.

]]> By: williamhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/27/lawmakers-slam-tanker-rfp/comment-page-1/#comment-15858 william Sun, 01 Nov 2009 01:15:47 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=10904#comment-15858 Cole, I understand why General Schwartz would want the multimission capability, it would be a great asset in air mobility. All im saying is that whichever tanker they pick needs to be the best at its intended mission which is refueling. I think the cargo mission should take a back seat to the primary mission while being looked at. I would rather an aircraft thats great at refueling and mediocre at airlift, then vice-versa, or mediocre at both. Now if either company can build an aircraft great at both more power too them, i just want the best airframe flying for the intended mission. unfortunatly we both know that most likely is not going to happen, its going to be the company with the most support and the one that brings the most jobs. Its a horrible way to purchase aircraft, but thats what happens when too many people get involved who wold love some "thank you" gifts from companies at the expense of the military. Cole,

I understand why General Schwartz would want the multimission capability, it would be a great asset in air mobility. All im saying is that whichever tanker they pick needs to be the best at its intended mission which is refueling. I think the cargo mission should take a back seat to the primary mission while being looked at. I would rather an aircraft thats great at refueling and mediocre at airlift, then vice-versa, or mediocre at both. Now if either company can build an aircraft great at both more power too them, i just want the best airframe flying for the intended mission. unfortunatly we both know that most likely is not going to happen, its going to be the company with the most support and the one that brings the most jobs. Its a horrible way to purchase aircraft, but thats what happens when too many people get involved who wold love some “thank you” gifts from companies at the expense of the military.

]]> By: Colehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/27/lawmakers-slam-tanker-rfp/comment-page-1/#comment-15841 Cole Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:44:36 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=10904#comment-15841 Geez, I wish there was a edit function. Sorry about the "more greater." Forgot to take out "more" when I inserted "greater." Geez, I wish there was a edit function. Sorry about the “more greater.” Forgot to take out “more” when I inserted “greater.”

]]> By: Colehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/27/lawmakers-slam-tanker-rfp/comment-page-1/#comment-15839 Cole Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:41:26 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=10904#comment-15839 Back in 2006 as head of the Airlift Command, General Schwartz said the above as he forecast employment of KC-X for more greater airlift than historical statistics imply. Considering the overburdening of C-17 flight hours and airframe stressing loads in current conflicts, greater use of KC-X for airlift will be essential. General Schwartz also cited new scenarios rendering past conflict average offloads somewhat irrelevant...except OEF where it was closer to 80,000 lbs per aircraft because distances were greater. In scenarios Gen Schwartz mentioned above, you would have the new threat of TBMs precluding closer positioning of KC-X that pfcem and Boeing like to cite. Instead, expect longer en route and longer anchor and track distances splitting the difference between basing fields and distant targets. Back in 2006 as head of the Airlift Command, General Schwartz said the above as he forecast employment of KC-X for more greater airlift than historical statistics imply. Considering the overburdening of C-17 flight hours and airframe stressing loads in current conflicts, greater use of KC-X for airlift will be essential.

General Schwartz also cited new scenarios rendering past conflict average offloads somewhat irrelevant…except OEF where it was closer to 80,000 lbs per aircraft because distances were greater. In scenarios Gen Schwartz mentioned above, you would have the new threat of TBMs precluding closer positioning of KC-X that pfcem and Boeing like to cite. Instead, expect longer en route and longer anchor and track distances splitting the difference between basing fields and distant targets.

]]> By: Colehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/27/lawmakers-slam-tanker-rfp/comment-page-1/#comment-15838 Cole Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:38:48 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=10904#comment-15838 "What we need is a multi-mission tanker that can do both boom and basket refueling, that can do passenger lift, some cargo lift, and have defensive systems that allow the airplane to go wherever we need to take it....if we’re going to war with Iran or Korea or over Taiwan or a major scenario, the first 15 to 30 days are going to be air refueling intensive. But what I’m talking about is the global war on terrorism, sir, for the next 15 or 20 or 25 years. That is not an air refueling intensive scenario and that’s why a multi-mission airplane to me makes sense." William, guess who said that? “What we need is a multi-mission tanker that can do both boom and basket refueling, that can do passenger lift, some cargo lift, and have defensive systems that allow the airplane to go wherever we need to take it.…if we’re going to war with Iran or Korea or over Taiwan or a major scenario, the first 15 to 30 days are going to be air refueling intensive. But what I’m talking about is the global war on terrorism, sir, for the next 15 or 20 or 25 years. That is not an air refueling intensive scenario and that’s why a multi-mission airplane to me makes sense.”

William, guess who said that?

]]> By: williamhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/27/lawmakers-slam-tanker-rfp/comment-page-1/#comment-15836 william Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:17:36 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=10904#comment-15836 I have an idea, how about we just build a tanker to do what a tanker should do and thats refuel planes. we need to stop all this cargo/passenger ability bs, this is a flying gas station not a cargo plane. figure out which one does its main job better and buy it. Your asking for a universal answer and you cant always get one that works good. Take the hummer for example. It was designed to move soliders, not deal with ied's. because of this people died and they blamed the vehicle for being horrible at something it was never suppose to do. you start asking equipment to do too much it becomes a jack of all traits that it does poorly but a master of none. the KC-135 does the refueling job very well but cargo wise sucks. The refueling job should come first, and be more important then how much cargo/people it can carry. I have an idea, how about we just build a tanker to do what a tanker should do and thats refuel planes. we need to stop all this cargo/passenger ability bs, this is a flying gas station not a cargo plane. figure out which one does its main job better and buy it. Your asking for a universal answer and you cant always get one that works good. Take the hummer for example. It was designed to move soliders, not deal with ied’s. because of this people died and they blamed the vehicle for being horrible at something it was never suppose to do. you start asking equipment to do too much it becomes a jack of all traits that it does poorly but a master of none. the KC-135 does the refueling job very well but cargo wise sucks. The refueling job should come first, and be more important then how much cargo/people it can carry.

]]> By: irtuskhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/27/lawmakers-slam-tanker-rfp/comment-page-1/#comment-15835 irtusk Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:38:04 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=10904#comment-15835 > No the USAF/DOD was not told to ask for the 767! Ted Stevens inserted a line item directing the AF to lease 100 Boeing tankers. How is that not telling them to get Boeing? > Again, this all started in 1996. the KC-30 of 1996 is irrelevant to today, time to move on > And the tanker lease KC-767 met all of the requirements it was intended to sure it met all the requirements, after 19 of the 26 original requirements were dropped > to threaten to pull out of the congress demanded competition in order to force the USAF/DOD to CHANGE and your point is? each side is obligated to do everything it can (legally) to win the contract. If they can shape the RFP, more power to them. Maybe Boeing should take some notes > I see you did not bother to read the article I linked to... sure i did, they NEVER brought up any threat to drop out they only addressed the issue (by saying it was premature to discuss) when directly asked about it > No the USAF/DOD was not told to ask for the 767!

Ted Stevens inserted a line item directing the AF to lease 100 Boeing tankers. How is that not telling them to get Boeing?

> Again, this all started in 1996.

the KC-30 of 1996 is irrelevant to today, time to move on

> And the tanker lease KC-767 met all of the requirements it was intended to

sure it met all the requirements, after 19 of the 26 original requirements were dropped

> to threaten to pull out of the congress demanded competition in order to force the USAF/DOD to CHANGE

and your point is?

each side is obligated to do everything it can (legally) to win the contract. If they can shape the RFP, more power to them. Maybe Boeing should take some notes

> I see you did not bother to read the article I linked to…

sure i did, they NEVER brought up any threat to drop out

they only addressed the issue (by saying it was premature to discuss) when directly asked about it

]]> By: pfcemhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/27/lawmakers-slam-tanker-rfp/comment-page-1/#comment-15832 pfcem Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:35:21 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=10904#comment-15832 No the USAF/DOD was not told to ask for the 767! It asked for the 767 because EVEN BEFORE 9/11/01 it had chosen the 767 as its preferred choice. Again, this all started in 1996. NO, AIRBUS claimed that the KC-330 meet more of the USAF's requirements than the KC-767. The USAF determined otherwise. And the tanker lease KC-767 met all of the requirements it was intended to. NG/EADS's 'modus operandi' has been insteed accepting what the USAF/DOD is asking for (since it knows what it is offering ain't it) to threaten to pull out of the congress demanded competition in order to force the USAF/DOD to CHANGE what it is asking for to accomodate what NG/EADS has to offer. I see you did not bother to read the article I linked to... No the USAF/DOD was not told to ask for the 767! It asked for the 767 because EVEN BEFORE 9/11/01 it had chosen the 767 as its preferred choice. Again, this all started in 1996.

NO, AIRBUS claimed that the KC-330 meet more of the USAF’s requirements than the KC-767. The USAF determined otherwise. And the tanker lease KC-767 met all of the requirements it was intended to.

NG/EADS’s ‘modus operandi’ has been insteed accepting what the USAF/DOD is asking for (since it knows what it is offering ain’t it) to threaten to pull out of the congress demanded competition in order to force the USAF/DOD to CHANGE what it is asking for to accomodate what NG/EADS has to offer.

I see you did not bother to read the article I linked to…

]]> By: max headroomhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/27/lawmakers-slam-tanker-rfp/comment-page-1/#comment-15814 max headroom Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:19:32 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=10904#comment-15814 <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g77OhUU3Qn8z1CXaKKobq-dq2q2gD9BLE8EO1" target="_blank"> Lie down with dogs, rise up with fleas</a> Dicks, Tiahrt, & Murtha unethical? I guess they learned a thing or two from their Boeing constituents Lie down with dogs, rise up with fleas

Dicks, Tiahrt, & Murtha unethical? I guess they learned a thing or two from their Boeing constituents

]]>