Comments on: Tanker Bid ‘Must Have Competition:’ Murtha http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/02/tanker-bid-must-have-competition-murtha/ Online Defense and Acquisition Journal Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:15:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Tammylouhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/02/tanker-bid-must-have-competition-murtha/#comment-21113 Tammylou Sat, 06 Mar 2010 04:16:06 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=11735#comment-21113 Just wanted to put a face to the discussion. This is who will pay for the corruption Just wanted to put a face to the discussion. This is who will pay for the corruption

]]> By: Tammylouhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/02/tanker-bid-must-have-competition-murtha/#comment-21112 Tammylou Sat, 06 Mar 2010 04:13:06 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=11735#comment-21112 <a href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=78112&id=100000739583382" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=78112&i...</a> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=78112&i…

]]> By: Donald Fortunehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/02/tanker-bid-must-have-competition-murtha/#comment-17794 Donald Fortune Thu, 17 Dec 2009 06:46:40 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=11735#comment-17794 hey, I have an idea, seeing as how theres lots of B-52s kicking around, why don't we convert some of those into aerial refuelers? it would save alot of money and I think Boeing would really like to see an order for more B-52s coming from the DoD and also the B-52 has no end of service date in sight, so why not like standardize that aspect and ease some of the stress of the logistics guys, you know, make things more effiecient hey, I have an idea, seeing as how theres lots of B-52s kicking around, why don’t we convert some of those into aerial refuelers? it would save alot of money and I think Boeing would really like to see an order for more B-52s coming from the DoD and also the B-52 has no end of service date in sight, so why not like standardize that aspect and ease some of the stress of the logistics guys, you know, make things more effiecient

]]> By: oldest391http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/02/tanker-bid-must-have-competition-murtha/#comment-17546 oldest391 Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:11:43 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=11735#comment-17546 Rule against Boeing. There is a counter-suite that says Boeing gets tax breaks which amounts to subides from the government and the WTO might rule against Boeing Rule against Boeing. There is a counter-suite that says Boeing gets tax breaks which amounts to subides from the government and the WTO might rule against Boeing

]]> By: Khimhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/02/tanker-bid-must-have-competition-murtha/#comment-17529 Khim Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:23:46 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=11735#comment-17529 William,can you name one instance for me where a KC-135 has fallen out of the sky in the recent conflict?The majority of these aircraft are going through a five year PDM program which will allow them to fly safely for approx 25 more years. William,can you name one instance for me where a KC-135 has fallen out of the sky in the recent conflict?The majority of these aircraft are going through a five year PDM program which will allow them to fly safely for approx 25 more years.

]]> By: pfcemhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/02/tanker-bid-must-have-competition-murtha/#comment-17407 pfcem Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:53:23 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=11735#comment-17407 You don't know that the WCT is going to rule against the US. Besides what does the 'counter-suite' have to do with the 767? You don’t know that the WCT is going to rule against the US.

Besides what does the ‘counter-suite’ have to do with the 767?

]]> By: pfcemhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/02/tanker-bid-must-have-competition-murtha/#comment-17406 pfcem Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:51:31 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=11735#comment-17406 Simple matter of fact. They can't respond to the facts so they attack the messenger. Simple matter of fact. They can’t respond to the facts so they attack the messenger.

]]> By: TankerPukehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/02/tanker-bid-must-have-competition-murtha/#comment-17389 TankerPuke Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:45:03 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=11735#comment-17389 "KC" stands for Kerosene Cargo. A bit of nostalgia for all the tanker aficionados out there. “KC” stands for Kerosene Cargo. A bit of nostalgia for all the tanker aficionados out there.

]]> By: William C.http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/02/tanker-bid-must-have-competition-murtha/#comment-17371 William C. Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:00:58 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=11735#comment-17371 So you would have all aging tankers fall out of the sky? Is that what it will take to get replacements? Pilots and crew dead in Afghanistan because their decades old aircraft should have been retired years ago but wasn't due to penny pinching and politics in Washington? Also we need the F-35 more than ever because as you said our current air-fleet is getting a ton of use over Afghanistan and will wear out faster for it. We need to get our plans for the USAF back on track, that means more fighters, tankers, and cargo aircraft in the coming years. So you would have all aging tankers fall out of the sky? Is that what it will take to get replacements? Pilots and crew dead in Afghanistan because their decades old aircraft should have been retired years ago but wasn’t due to penny pinching and politics in Washington?

Also we need the F-35 more than ever because as you said our current air-fleet is getting a ton of use over Afghanistan and will wear out faster for it. We need to get our plans for the USAF back on track, that means more fighters, tankers, and cargo aircraft in the coming years.

]]> By: pfcemhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/02/tanker-bid-must-have-competition-murtha/#comment-17368 pfcem Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:42:18 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=11735#comment-17368 You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. KC does not mean 'Cargo Tanker' The KC-135 originally had NO cargo requirement, but limited 'cargo' capability was later added. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

KC does not mean ‘Cargo Tanker’

The KC-135 originally had NO cargo requirement, but limited ‘cargo’ capability was later added.

]]> By: oldest391http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/02/tanker-bid-must-have-competition-murtha/#comment-17365 oldest391 Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:19:06 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=11735#comment-17365 Hey guys you all seem to forget this is a "KC, Cargo Tanker", If the Air Force only wants a Tanker then change the designation to a "K". That is what the KC-135 is. You do not see it hauling cargo that much. If this is to be a true "KC" aircraft they need to look at the whole spectrum from fuel to cargo not just the fuel. Until they do that this "KC" is a farse it is only a "K" aircraft Hey guys you all seem to forget this is a “KC, Cargo Tanker”, If the Air Force only wants a Tanker then change the designation to a “K”. That is what the KC-135 is. You do not see it hauling cargo that much. If this is to be a true “KC” aircraft they need to look at the whole spectrum from fuel to cargo not just the fuel. Until they do that this “KC” is a farse it is only a “K” aircraft

]]> By: oldest391http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/02/tanker-bid-must-have-competition-murtha/#comment-17364 oldest391 Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:14:56 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=11735#comment-17364 Wonder how long it would take for the Boeing lover to say something. You know what is going to happen when the WTC also rules that Boeing has been getting subsidies from the government whether it be local, state or Federal. Will that change the picture? Wonder how long it would take for the Boeing lover to say something. You know what is going to happen when the WTC also rules that Boeing has been getting subsidies from the government whether it be local, state or Federal. Will that change the picture?

]]> By: oldest391http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/02/tanker-bid-must-have-competition-murtha/#comment-17363 oldest391 Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:11:08 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=11735#comment-17363 Also too there Old P the 767 is a 20 year plus old airframe. They will be issues of parts and stuff like that. Least the A300 is newer airframe. Amazing how the military will use OLD AIRFRAMES for their most important tankers. The only new cargo aircraft is Boeing C-17 which almost looks like a C-141 on steriods. Other than that all the other aircraft are over 20 years old. Also too there Old P the 767 is a 20 year plus old airframe. They will be issues of parts and stuff like that. Least the A300 is newer airframe. Amazing how the military will use OLD AIRFRAMES for their most important tankers. The only new cargo aircraft is Boeing C-17 which almost looks like a C-141 on steriods. Other than that all the other aircraft are over 20 years old.

]]> By: TankerPukehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/02/tanker-bid-must-have-competition-murtha/#comment-17288 TankerPuke Sat, 05 Dec 2009 23:07:47 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=11735#comment-17288 Gas Passer, you are spot on. Maximum fuel per square foot of ramp space is the Employment tanker's strength. You also keenly noted that both offerings are wide body aircraft and can offer well in excess of the part-time cargo lifting needs of the next multi-role tanker. Just look at how the KC-10 is used. It was bought as the next multi-role tanker transport, yet it has never emerged as a serious box hauler...but rather a Deployment tanker. Our military needs both. We're replacing our Employment tanker, the KC-135, so it only makes sense to buy the best Employment tanker in the mix...thus max fuel per sq. ft. of ramp gets you the most capability per boom. And in the US Air Force's aerial refueling business, booms in the sky is what they need. The proof is in their historical tanker use data, which shows KC-135s delivering ~60k lbs of fuel per mission at less than 1000 NM radius. Both KC-X offerings can blow that away. So let's be careful how much overkill we buy or we'll be trying to park school buses in our garages to take our 2.5 kids to soccer games. Gas Passer, you are spot on. Maximum fuel per square foot of ramp space is the Employment tanker’s strength. You also keenly noted that both offerings are wide body aircraft and can offer well in excess of the part-time cargo lifting needs of the next multi-role tanker. Just look at how the KC-10 is used. It was bought as the next multi-role tanker transport, yet it has never emerged as a serious box hauler…but rather a Deployment tanker. Our military needs both. We’re replacing our Employment tanker, the KC-135, so it only makes sense to buy the best Employment tanker in the mix…thus max fuel per sq. ft. of ramp gets you the most capability per boom. And in the US Air Force’s aerial refueling business, booms in the sky is what they need. The proof is in their historical tanker use data, which shows KC-135s delivering ~60k lbs of fuel per mission at less than 1000 NM radius. Both KC-X offerings can blow that away. So let’s be careful how much overkill we buy or we’ll be trying to park school buses in our garages to take our 2.5 kids to soccer games.

]]> By: Byron Skinnerhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/02/tanker-bid-must-have-competition-murtha/#comment-17286 Byron Skinner Sat, 05 Dec 2009 20:33:48 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=11735#comment-17286 Good Morning Folks,The only concern of Congressman Murtha is the amount of money he will get from the various interest in this. If half the bidders walk away, well the Congressman's pockets are a little lighter.The Tanker project is based on an estimation of need done by the Air Force in the late 1990's. The request was based on the assumption that the there would be 500 F-22s. 500-C-17's, the JSF coming in by the end of the first decade of the new century at full production and we would need a fleet of at least 500 tankers and that the current fleet would start leaving service in the 2010's based on estimation of use.At the time this assessment might have been reasonable. The US was into a never ending no fly operation in Iraq that was raking up hours on high performance fighters, we were support a logistics heavy operation in the Bosnia with a high probably of an air war, which did happen. But the times have changed with 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq.The AF will have only 187 F-22's, the 209th. and close to last C-17 was delivered to the North Carolina Air National Guard in October, the production run of the JSF is very much in doubt and the AF has been reduced in size by about 50K personal. The new contract calls for only 179 Tankers.The AF is being reduced to having (600) very expensive trained fighter pilot do a two year tours as UAV crews. This is a skam as well as a waste of money. The Army is doing the same mission with enlisted people who have not had millions of dollars invested in them to be fighter pilots.A more current estimate of need by the AF has scaled back the tanker needs as well as the life span of the existing tanker fleet, which now is estimated by the AF and GAO to be into the 2030's. There is a noticeable lack of AF officers pushing for this deal.In fact the only strong support for the tanker bid, is coming from the antebellum conservative toxic think tanks, that are being paid by both bidders to promoted their interests in the decision making process, that have lost there seats at the Pentagon table.Last Tuesday night President Obama made a rather large and expensive commitment to Afghanistan that has been estimated to cost about $40 billion and the president says he intends to pay for Afghanistan out of current money and not debt. "The Tanker Program" is areal good place to start, cancel it all together. After that the president and Sec. Gates should take another look at the F-35 and ask themselves, will it be ready for use in Afghanistan?, what will it do for us in Afghanistan that is not already being done by other platforms?, then get out the budget ax.ALLONS, Byron Skinner Good Morning Folks,

The only concern of Congressman Murtha is the amount of money he will get from the various interest in this. If half the bidders walk away, well the Congressman’s pockets are a little lighter.

The Tanker project is based on an estimation of need done by the Air Force in the late 1990’s. The request was based on the assumption that the there would be 500 F-22s. 500-C-17’s, the JSF coming in by the end of the first decade of the new century at full production and we would need a fleet of at least 500 tankers and that the current fleet would start leaving service in the 2010’s based on estimation of use.

At the time this assessment might have been reasonable. The US was into a never ending no fly operation in Iraq that was raking up hours on high performance fighters, we were support a logistics heavy operation in the Bosnia with a high probably of an air war, which did happen. But the times have changed with 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq.

The AF will have only 187 F-22’s, the 209th. and close to last C-17 was delivered to the North Carolina Air National Guard in October, the production run of the JSF is very much in doubt and the AF has been reduced in size by about 50K personal. The new contract calls for only 179 Tankers.

The AF is being reduced to having (600) very expensive trained fighter pilot do a two year tours as UAV crews. This is a skam as well as a waste of money. The Army is doing the same mission with enlisted people who have not had millions of dollars invested in them to be fighter pilots.

A more current estimate of need by the AF has scaled back the tanker needs as well as the life span of the existing tanker fleet, which now is estimated by the AF and GAO to be into the 2030’s. There is a noticeable lack of AF officers pushing for this deal.

In fact the only strong support for the tanker bid, is coming from the antebellum conservative toxic think tanks, that are being paid by both bidders to promoted their interests in the decision making process, that have lost there seats at the Pentagon table.

Last Tuesday night President Obama made a rather large and expensive commitment to Afghanistan that has been estimated to cost about $40 billion and the president says he intends to pay for Afghanistan out of current money and not debt. “The Tanker Program” is areal good place to start, cancel it all together. After that the president and Sec. Gates should take another look at the F-35 and ask themselves, will it be ready for use in Afghanistan?, what will it do for us in Afghanistan that is not already being done by other platforms?, then get out the budget ax.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

]]> By: BS_Busterhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/02/tanker-bid-must-have-competition-murtha/#comment-17250 BS_Buster Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:39:48 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=11735#comment-17250 oldP you need to stick to consumer reports on cars and leave the airplanes to those who know something about them! Yes, the Boeing 767 is developed, several models of them, but if you think their proposal of putting parts of the 767-200, 767-300, 767-400, Italian tanker and Japanese tanker together into one Frankentanker is a good idea then you better read the novel. The ending wasn't good! oldP you need to stick to consumer reports on cars and leave the airplanes to those who know something about them! Yes, the Boeing 767 is developed, several models of them, but if you think their proposal of putting parts of the 767–200, 767–300, 767–400, Italian tanker and Japanese tanker together into one Frankentanker is a good idea then you better read the novel. The ending wasn’t good!

]]> By: wookshttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/02/tanker-bid-must-have-competition-murtha/#comment-17245 wooks Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:19:27 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=11735#comment-17245 Obviously your ignorance hasn't been stamped out. Airbus is owned by EADS. Nothing to do with the UK. Obviously your ignorance hasn’t been stamped out. Airbus is owned by EADS. Nothing to do with the UK.

]]> By: JMNhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/02/tanker-bid-must-have-competition-murtha/#comment-17236 JMN Fri, 04 Dec 2009 03:21:33 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=11735#comment-17236 Hey Buster, my message goes for Boeing too and for whatevers left of our American Military Industrial Complex. No more out sourcing, off shoring, or contracting out, be it Air Tankers or micro-chips. It's time to begin rebuilding America! Not Asia, Not India, Not the EU. Our non-representing representatives in washington should do the right thing and work with the private sector to harness what's left of the MIlitary Industrial complex and advance it. America is worth it. Boeing should get the contract period! JMN JMN Hey Buster, my message goes for Boeing too and for whatevers left of our American Military Industrial Complex. No more out sourcing, off shoring, or contracting out, be it Air Tankers or micro-chips.

It’s time to begin rebuilding America! Not Asia, Not India, Not the EU. Our non-representing representatives in washington should do the right thing and work with the private sector to harness what’s left of the MIlitary Industrial complex and advance it. America is worth it.

Boeing should get the contract period!

JMN

JMN

]]> By: GasPasserhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/02/tanker-bid-must-have-competition-murtha/#comment-17234 GasPasser Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:43:45 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=11735#comment-17234 Part - 2 Therefore, the USAF needs to pick the aircraft that gives them the most for its footprint. Make no mistake; this is a refueler first and foremost. Only during peace-time is a tanker used for carrying pax or cargo, as well as the deployment/redeployment of that airframe to/from theater in war-time. The DoD has to look to its war-time mission first – peace-time use is a bonus. While the KC-10 has more capability in the way of; fuel, pallets, and pax carrying capability, it still has fewer booms than the KC-135 per a million square feet of parking. If you think these aircraft don’t need parking, you don’t know the air refueling business. The good news is that both are bidding wide-body aircraft (more pallets/pax for its footprint) and will be air-refuelable themselves - with 3-baskets to boot for NATO/Navy recievers (just like the KC-10). Part — 2
Therefore, the USAF needs to pick the aircraft that gives them the most for its footprint. Make no mistake; this is a refueler first and foremost. Only during peace-time is a tanker used for carrying pax or cargo, as well as the deployment/redeployment of that airframe to/from theater in war-time. The DoD has to look to its war-time mission first – peace-time use is a bonus. While the KC-10 has more capability in the way of; fuel, pallets, and pax carrying capability, it still has fewer booms than the KC-135 per a million square feet of parking. If you think these aircraft don’t need parking, you don’t know the air refueling business. The good news is that both are bidding wide-body aircraft (more pallets/pax for its footprint) and will be air-refuelable themselves — with 3-baskets to boot for NATO/Navy recievers (just like the KC-10).

]]> By: GasPasserhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/02/tanker-bid-must-have-competition-murtha/#comment-17235 GasPasser Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:43:09 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=11735#comment-17235 As a USAF tanker operator for my 20+ career, I feel I can make some real-world based comments on this subject. As the USAF/DOD has shed foreign bases over the last 20 years, contingency operations rely on foreign nations to allow us to use their airfields for basing our aircraft. Given the legs heavy aircraft have, they are often based more than an hour (often further in SW Asia). Given all the aircraft the Commanders want to bring to the fight, space at these “on-loan” bases is at a premium. Therefore, you want to make the most of your real estate. Aside from what the RFP may be requesting or favoring, the ideal KC-135 replacement would be an aircraft that is able to: carry more fuel, burn less fuel per-hour, carry more pallets, carry more pax, AND have a smaller footprint – than the KC-135. Neither of these aircraft fit that bill – because of their footprint. Only an expensive, custom designed and special purpose aircraft could give you more with a smaller footprint. Modern airliner/cargo aircraft are optimized for carrying lighter than jet fuel cargo/pax. As a USAF tanker operator for my 20+ career, I feel I can make some real-world based comments on this subject. As the USAF/DOD has shed foreign bases over the last 20 years, contingency operations rely on foreign nations to allow us to use their airfields for basing our aircraft. Given the legs heavy aircraft have, they are often based more than an hour (often further in SW Asia). Given all the aircraft the Commanders want to bring to the fight, space at these “on-loan” bases is at a premium. Therefore, you want to make the most of your real estate. Aside from what the RFP may be requesting or favoring, the ideal KC-135 replacement would be an aircraft that is able to: carry more fuel, burn less fuel per-hour, carry more pallets, carry more pax, AND have a smaller footprint – than the KC-135. Neither of these aircraft fit that bill – because of their footprint. Only an expensive, custom designed and special purpose aircraft could give you more with a smaller footprint. Modern airliner/cargo aircraft are optimized for carrying lighter than jet fuel cargo/pax.

]]>