Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Quote:

Here is the Washington Posts

Thumper3181 wrote:

You should have added Business columnist. There is a difference in this country from what is news and what is opinion. business columns (like any other column) is commentary and not news. Bus since you insist...

Seems he knows his eggs, he used to do defence...Of course it is commentary, and it is spot on.

Now that the decision has been made, Boeing's congressional allies, who for months vigorously defended the sweetheart lease agreement, are suddenly deeply concerned about the integrity of a selection process that looks to this former defense contracting reporter as clean and open as any in Pentagon history.

Quote:

Overturning this contract decision would set a terrible precedent. It would signal to allies that while their governments are expected to buy our stuff, we won't buy theirs.

Thumper3181 wrote:

No, it really should not when the procurement process was unfair and there is a domestically produced alternative that is less expensive and keeps jobs here. Now would you like to talk about those engines on the still to fly A400M? The Lightening, the Phantoms with the Speys, the Tornado or the Typhoon. Lets talk about not buying ours when clearly there are cheaper, better foreign alternatives.

Of course it was unfair, Boeing lost. Rolling Eyes

So what`s your issue with the A-400M? I will have to read on that.

The Spey engined Phantoms were undoubtedly a political decision to maintain UK input and give business to RR. The Harrier was taken by McDonnell Douglas, then built in the US. You don`t really believe that if the US had a ready alternative to Pegasus at the time that they wouldn`t have used their own engine?

Your tankers will be built in the US, 60% of them, with GE engines. Non issue, you have huge home input.

The Tornado had collaborative engines (Turbo-Union), without those engines, there would be no big military engine maker left in Europe to sustain apart from SNECMA. Bit of a difference. Not the case with Boeing, who will remain alive and well even after the A-330 deal. Any problems so far?

Again, the Typhoon has Eurojet engines, again to sustain military engine technology in Europe, buying a US engine would have been like handing over the crown Jewels to Pratt or G.E., with a total monopoly. Not healthy.

Quote:

Turns out, the contract was altered to give Boeing a better chance, but they still lost.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Maybe english in the UK is a bit different than that which is used over here but I don't see how it's that different

"Once Northrop and Airbus had a chance to study the draft request for proposals, they concluded that the proposed criteria all but guaranteed a Boeing victory, and they threatened to pull out. Under pressure from McCain, the Air Force added new criteria that gave some weight to the added capabilities offered by the larger A330"

Yes, and the differences enabled Boeing AND EADS to widen the choice of aircraft they could offer as a tanker, but Boeing still fell short.

Quote:

This on MARINE ONE replacement, which I agree with, it is outrageous.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Yes it is. All the more reason to be dead set against this EADS turd.
Gordon "Offshore it" England's days are numbered at the DOD. He will not survive the change of executive leadership.

MARINE ONE. Ask yourself why there are no US alternatives?

F-16.net Sponsor

Something with your morning tea Snypa
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1205187 ... lenews_wsj

It seems that Boeing feels they have a good chance of winning the protest.

Quote:

The Harrier was taken by McDonnell Douglas, then built in the US. You don`t really believe that if the US had a ready alternative to Pegasus at the time that they wouldn`t have used their own engine?

I purposely did not mention the Harrier because while I may not see much utility in it, it is obvious the USMC does and at the time there was no alternative to be had here.

Quote:

The Tornado had collaborative engines (Turbo-Union), without those engines,

Forget the engines, I am talking about the entire program. Does F-15 ring a bell?

Quote:

there would be no big military engine maker left in Europe to sustain apart from SNECMA

No excuse, you cannot have it both ways. Without the tanker contract for Boeing there is no tanker maker left in the US.

Quote:

Again, the Typhoon has Eurojet engines, again to sustain military engine technology in Europe

Again, you cannot have it both ways. And again I am not just talking about the engines.

I can't believe you cannot see the hypocrisy in your words. Let me paraphrase. It's okay to defend and support military manufacturers in Europe but the same standard does not apply in the states. Not only is that hypocrisy but I find it especially irritating given the fact of the trillions we have spent defending Europe over the years. And no don;t give me that it's in your best interests BS. We could have just as easily decided to split Europe with the Russians and saved ourselves a lot of money. Lets also not forget that to this day that the US is guarantees the peace in Europe.

Marine one is small potatoes.

Guys,

Calm down. As a Scot until my late 30's and now American by choice I have two feet in this fight.

First of all the Pegasus engine was offered to P&W, they turned it down saying they could make something a lot better and why bother for such a stupid concept. Well where are they now? F135? I was at the meetings.

Secondly the British F-4's were based on the USN F-4J, but fitted with the more powerful Rolls-Royce Spey engine for improved take-off performance. The big issue was performance off the boat, faster acceleration, an additional +2,700 Lbs of thrust, and improved bring back capability. The larger engine also improved low-level speed, doubled the mission range, and improved the low level acceleration (P sub s) but the crappy intake design caused aerodynamic problems and resulted in top end Mach number reduction from M2.1 to M1.9.

Third, the RB199 was designed for a specific mission profile, long range cruise with low fuel consumption and then high power for a fast deep strike at low level. The Tornado airframe was designed and stressed for carrier operations, this requirement ruled out the F-15, the F-14 was not available for sale and did not have the flight characteristics to meet the mission profile.

Fourth, the EJ200 engine is a development of the RB199 making good use of the initial investment.

Fifth, look at how much of the 767 and especially the 787 is being sourced from outside the USA by Boeing. Especially look at the fevered rants of the IAM leadership last year about the wings being outsourced to Japan.

Hey ASIATRAILS, I am chilled. Laughing

I am startled that the Tonka was designed with carrier ops` in mind? I missed that one, thanks for the info`.
I have always been led to believe that the Spey/F4-UK choice was heavily influenced politically though....I remember the tales of USN F-4`s zooming past RAF ones though at higher altitudes!

I think there were plenty of practical US alternatives to the RB-199, but as a Euro` collab`, a non-starter.

Thumper, given the choice, Europe is going to sustain it`s industry in the same way the US does. Don`t worry about Boeing, they are still selling the 767 tanker and their experience isn`t going to go away overnight. US tanker making capability isn`t dissapearing either, remember, NG are involved.

No hard feelings Thumper, I call it as I see it. I see a thinly veiled dislike of the KC-45 deal simply because it isn`t a US airliner. There are worries about jobs and capability which aren`t at all justified. UK PLC invests more money in the US than just about anybody else and the Eurozone are your biggest trading partners. I just don`t see any need for people to get their knickers in a twist about this. You would call it simplistic, but I think it is, just that simple.

What do we do? Draw a line in the sand and give you back the hundreds of F-16s`, AEGIS weapons systems, D5 Trident missiles, C-130`s, C-17`s, Appaches, MLRS, AMRAAM, LGBs, etc, etc,etc and call it quits?
You can give us back our ....hmmmm, Harriers and Goshawks Laughing

Just kidding.

The Boeing Company wrote:

Boeing to File Protest of U.S. Air Force Tanker Contract Award

CHICAGO, March 10, 2008 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] will file a formal protest on Tuesday asking the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the decision by the U.S. Air Force to award a contract to a team of Northrop Grumman and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) to replace aerial refueling tankers.

"Our team has taken a very close look at the tanker decision and found serious flaws in the process that we believe warrant appeal," said Jim McNerney, Boeing chairman, president and chief executive officer. "This is an extraordinary step rarely taken by our company, and one we take very seriously."

Following a debriefing on the decision by the Air Force on March 7, Boeing officials spent three days reviewing the Air Force case for its tanker award. A rigorous analysis of the Air Force evaluation that resulted in the Northrop/EADS contract led Boeing to the conclusion that a protest was necessary.

"Based upon what we have seen, we continue to believe we submitted the most capable, lowest risk, lowest Most Probable Life Cycle Cost airplane as measured against the Air Force's Request for Proposal," McNerney said. "We look forward to the GAO's review of the decision."

Boeing said it would provide additional details of its case in conjunction with the protest filing on Tuesday.

Source: http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/200 ... 0c_nr.html

Cheers ASIF, this was always going to happen. Lets hope the GAO sorts it out quickly and the USAF can get on with the business of actually getting a Tanker!
There is a danger that this will be dragged on, and on, the USAF will end up begging for the Fokker Triplane as a tanker just to get the whole thing moving!

Quote:

the USAF will end up begging for the Fokker Triplane as a tanker just to get the whole thing moving!

We needed that good chuckle. Thanks!!!!

Here we go!!!!!

Reuters
GAO sustains Boeing tanker protest: US senator
Wednesday June 18, 1:36 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. government auditors sided with Boeing Co (NYSE:BA - News) in its protest of a $35 billion tanker contract award to rival Northrop Grumman Corp (NYSE:NOC - News) and its European partner, EADS (Paris:EAD.PA - News), Sen. Patty Murray of Washington said on Wednesday.

Thumper3181 wrote:

No excuse, you cannot have it both ways. Without the tanker contract for Boeing there is no tanker maker left in the US.

When was the last time they delivered a tanker to the USAF?

Boeing last delivered a USAF tanker in 1965, but they have delivered tankers to other nations on an off and on basis for decades. (KC-707).

I don't think that anyone is doubting that Scarebus can build a tanker, I think what the problem is that no one believes that they can build it in the timeframe that the USAF needs and for the price they are promising. Then add in the fact that the KC-30 does not conform to the Bid proposal that Boeing sent out and it's easy to see why the GAO sided with Boeing.

Elliboom wrote:

Boeing last delivered a USAF tanker in 1965, but they have delivered tankers to other nations on an off and on basis for decades. (KC-707).

I don't think that anyone is doubting that Scarebus can build a tanker, I think what the problem is that no one believes that they can build it in the timeframe that the USAF needs and for the price they are promising. Then add in the fact that the KC-30 does not conform to the Bid proposal that Boeing sent out and it's easy to see why the GAO sided with Boeing.

It is more likely to be ready on time than the KC767.....The KC-45 is a far more "off the shelf" designed and tested airframe than the composite 767 which hasnt even flown yet, let alone performed flight testing.

How are the Italian and Japanese KC-767's are going in their contracted delivery schedule?

As to how the GAO upheld protest goes, hopefully whatever happens gets resolved sooner or later!

South: I think you have things messed up.

1) The 787 is Boeings new composite acft not the 767. The 767 has been around a long time.
2) 767 tanker is already flying.

KC-767's are delayed, just like any Airbus order.

When's 1st flight of the KC-45 scheduled?

Found it.

KC-45 (D-1) 1st flight Sept 2007.

Lurch wrote:

Found it.

KC-45 (D-1) 1st flight Sept 2007.

Yes, but that is not the configuration that the USAF is getting. So just like Boeing EADS has not flown the USAF version yet. At least Boeing has the infastructure in place to produce the planes NOW. Airbus does not even have a factory or a workforce in place to produce the jets. The initial production run will be built in France until the Mobile Alabama plant is up an running. Yeah right, my bet would be that there will not be a single KC-45 built in Alabama for at least 10 years, if at all.

Lurch wrote:

South: I think you have things messed up.

1) The 787 is Boeings new composite acft not the 767. The 767 has been around a long time.

What he meant was Boeing's proposal combined elements from the various submodels of the commercial 767: a -400 wing, a -200 main cabin, etc. Nothin' like that has ever been tried before. Many folks took to callin' it the "FrankenTanker". Wink

If it were me, put the -400 wing and cockpit on the -300 main tube and go from there. That would have still been smaller than the Airbus but a lot closer performance-wise. Two Cents

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

KC-X: And the winner is......