TANKER CONTROVERSY: QUESTIONS THE AIR FORCE MUST ANSWER

[Mike[_7_]]

http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1268.shtml

TANKER CONTROVERSY: QUESTIONS THE AIR FORCE MUST ANSWER
Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
Issue Brief
May 28, 2008

It is now three months since the Air Force shocked the world by
awarding the contract for its next-generation aerial-refueling tanker
to Northrop Grumman and the European parent of Airbus. Throughout
that time, service officials have insisted that the process by which
the winner was chosen was transparent and fair. But the service has
failed to answer even the most basic questions about how the decision
was made to deny the contract to Boeing, the widely favored
incumbent. The Government Accountability Office is expected to issue
a ruling on Boeing's protest of the outcome in mid-June. Whatever it
finds, the Air Force has some explaining to do...

1. The Air Force says it would cost roughly the same amount to
develop, manufacture and operate 179 next-generation tankers,
regardless of whether they are based on the Boeing 767 or the Airbus
A330. But the Airbus plane is 27% heavier than the Boeing plane, and
burns over a ton more fuel per flight hour. With fuel prices headed
for the upper stratosphere, how can both planes cost the same amount
to build and operate over their lifetimes?

2. The Air Force says it would be equally risky to develop the Boeing
tanker or the Airbus tanker -- after forcing Boeing to substantially
increase the time and money required to develop its version. But
Boeing proposed to build its tanker on the same assembly line where it
has already constructed hundreds of the same airframe, whereas Airbus
proposes to build its tanker at a plant and with a workforce that
don't yet exist in Alabama. How can the risks be equal?

3. The Air Force says that a computerized simulation of how the
competing tankers would function in an actual wartime scenario
strongly favored the larger Airbus plane. But the simulation assumed
longer runways, stronger asphalt and more parking space than actually
exists at forward bases, and failed to consider the consequences of
losing bases in wartime. How can such unrealistic assumptions be
relevant to the selection of a next-generation tanker?

4. The Air Force says the Northrop-Airbus team received higher
ratings on past performance than the Boeing team, based on a review of
programs deemed similar to the future tanker. But Boeing built all
600 of the tankers in the current Air Force fleet, whereas Northrop
and Airbus have never delivered a single tanker equipped with the
refueling boom the Air Force requires. How can Northrop and Airbus
have superior past performance?

I could go on. The Air Force refused to consider Boeing cost data
based on 10,000,000 hours of operating the commercial version of the
767, substituting instead repair costs based on the 50-year-old KC-135
tanker. It said it would not award extra points for exceeding key
performance objectives, and then proceeded to award extra points. It
said it wanted to acquire a "medium" tanker to replace its cold war
refueling planes, and ended up picking a plane twice as big.

Whatever else this process may have been, it definitely was not
transparent. Even now, neither of the competing teams really
understands why the competition turned out the way it did. It would
be nice to hear from the Air Force about how key tradeoffs were made,
because at present it looks like a double standard prevailed in the
evaluation of the planes offered by the two teams.

[Starshiy]

>
> It is now three months since the Air Force shocked the world


No Sir, only the US !!!

[[email protected][_2_]]

On May 28, 9:24*am, Mike > wrote:
> http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1268.shtml
>
> TANKER CONTROVERSY: QUESTIONS THE AIR FORCE MUST ANSWER
> Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Issue Brief
> May 28, 2008
>
> It is now three months since the Air Force shocked the world by
> awarding the contract for its next-generation aerial-refueling tanker
> to Northrop Grumman and the European parent of Airbus. *Throughout
> that time, service officials have insisted that the process by which
> the winner was chosen was transparent and fair. *But the service has
> failed to answer even the most basic questions about how the decision
> was made to deny the contract to Boeing, the widely favored
> incumbent. *The Government Accountability Office is expected to issue
> a ruling on Boeing's protest of the outcome in mid-June. *Whatever it
> finds, the Air Force has some explaining to do...
>
> 1. *The Air Force says it would cost roughly the same amount to
> develop, manufacture and operate 179 next-generation tankers,
> regardless of whether they are based on the Boeing 767 or the Airbus
> A330. *But the Airbus plane is 27% heavier than the Boeing plane, and
> burns over a ton more fuel per flight hour. *With fuel prices headed
> for the upper stratosphere, how can both planes cost the same amount
> to build and operate over their lifetimes?
>
> 2. *The Air Force says it would be equally risky to develop the Boeing
> tanker or the Airbus tanker -- after forcing Boeing to substantially
> increase the time and money required to develop its version. *But
> Boeing proposed to build its tanker on the same assembly line where it
> has already constructed hundreds of the same airframe, whereas Airbus
> proposes to build its tanker at a plant and with a workforce that
> don't yet exist in Alabama. *How can the risks be equal?
>
> 3. *The Air Force says that a computerized simulation of how the
> competing tankers would function in an actual wartime scenario
> strongly favored the larger Airbus plane. *But the simulation assumed
> longer runways, stronger asphalt and more parking space than actually
> exists at forward bases, and failed to consider the consequences of
> losing bases in wartime. *How can such unrealistic assumptions be
> relevant to the selection of a next-generation tanker?
>
> 4. *The Air Force says the Northrop-Airbus team received higher
> ratings on past performance than the Boeing team, based on a review of
> programs deemed similar to the future tanker. *But Boeing built all
> 600 of the tankers in the current Air Force fleet, whereas Northrop
> and Airbus have never delivered a single tanker equipped with the
> refueling boom the Air Force requires. *How can Northrop and Airbus
> have superior past performance?
>
> I could go on. *The Air Force refused to consider Boeing cost data
> based on 10,000,000 hours of operating the commercial version of the
> 767, substituting instead repair costs based on the 50-year-old KC-135
> tanker. *It said it would not award extra points for exceeding key
> performance objectives, and then proceeded to award extra points. *It
> said it wanted to acquire a "medium" tanker to replace its cold war
> refueling planes, and ended up picking a plane twice as big.
>
> Whatever else this process may have been, it definitely was not
> transparent. *Even now, neither of the competing teams really
> understands why the competition turned out the way it did. *It would
> be nice to hear from the Air Force about how key tradeoffs were made,
> because at present it looks like a double standard prevailed in the
> evaluation of the planes offered by the two teams.

Boeing lost. Get over it. If you've been laid off, Northrop grumman
is hiring.

[Mike[_7_]]

uh-oh, NGC bulit anything before?
Mike

http://boeingblogs.com/tanker/

http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/

[[email protected][_2_]]

On May 28, 11:37*am, Mike > wrote:
> uh-oh, NGC bulit anything before?
> Mike
>
> http://boeingblogs.com/tanker/
>
> http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/

Is that a serious question?

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 16:37:20 -0400, KENG > wrote:

>Starshiy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It is now three months since the Air Force shocked the world
>>
>>
>>
>> No Sir, only the US !!!
>>
>One question. Please name one aerospace manufacturer (other than Boeing)
>that has successfully built an aircraft utilizing a flying boom.
>
>KenG

Can we count the KC-10 Extender from MacAir? Or the Airbus tankers
sold to other countries?

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"
www.thunderchief.org

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

KENG wrote:
>
> One question. Please name one aerospace manufacturer (other than
> Boeing) that has successfully built an aircraft utilizing a flying boom.

McDonnell Douglas

[Eugene Griessel]

KENG > wrote:

>>> One question. Please name one aerospace manufacturer (other than
>>> Boeing) that has successfully built an aircraft utilizing a flying
>>> boom.

Did it ever occur to you that only the USAAF has ever needed such a
thing? Nobody else has aircraft that big and that thirsty to make it
necessary or cost effective. I do suggest that technology pioneered
almost 60 years ago would not be that difficult for any modern
aerospace manufacturer to replicate, if they ever needed to.

Eugene L Griessel

Everybody lies about sex.

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

[Andrew Swallow[_2_]]

> KENG > wrote:
>
>>>> One question. Please name one aerospace manufacturer (other than
>>>> Boeing) that has successfully built an aircraft utilizing a flying
>>>> boom.

The RAF has been using Vickers VC10 for inflight refuelling.
<http://www.vc10.net/Photos/raf_tanker_force.html>

Andrew Swallow

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Eugene Griessel wrote:
>
> Did it ever occur to you that only the USAAF has ever needed such a
> thing? Nobody else has aircraft that big and that thirsty to make it
> necessary or cost effective. I do suggest that technology pioneered
> almost 60 years ago would not be that difficult for any modern
> aerospace manufacturer to replicate, if they ever needed to.
>

The Armee de l'Air, Republic of Singapore Air Force, and Turkish Air Force
also felt the need for such a thing.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

KENG wrote:
>
> One point. MacAir is now Boeing.
>

It wasn't Boeing when it successfully built the KC-10, an aircraft utilizing
a flying boom.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> KENG > wrote:
>>
>>>>> One question. Please name one aerospace manufacturer (other than
>>>>> Boeing) that has successfully built an aircraft utilizing a flying
>>>>> boom.
>
> The RAF has been using Vickers VC10 for inflight refuelling.
> <http://www.vc10.net/Photos/raf_tanker_force.html>
>

Doers it utilize a flying boom?

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 21:46:49 GMT, (Eugene
Griessel) wrote:

>KENG > wrote:
>
>>>> One question. Please name one aerospace manufacturer (other than
>>>> Boeing) that has successfully built an aircraft utilizing a flying
>>>> boom.
>
>Did it ever occur to you that only the USAAF has ever needed such a
>thing? Nobody else has aircraft that big and that thirsty to make it
>necessary or cost effective. I do suggest that technology pioneered
>almost 60 years ago would not be that difficult for any modern
>aerospace manufacturer to replicate, if they ever needed to.
>
>Eugene L Griessel

Maybe the essential element to take note of is that the flying boom
for the Northrop/EADS tanker is made in the USA. Also the engines. Oh,
and the avionics. And lots of other little pieces/parts.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"
www.thunderchief.org

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Andrew Swallow > wrote:

> > KENG > wrote:
> >
> >>>> One question. Please name one aerospace manufacturer (other than
> >>>> Boeing) that has successfully built an aircraft utilizing a flying
> >>>> boom.
>
> The RAF has been using Vickers VC10 for inflight refuelling.
> <http://www.vc10.net/Photos/raf_tanker_force.html>

The VC-10 tanker is quite nifty, yes, but it looks (at least in all the
linked pictures) to be offering probe-and-drogue fill ups only.

[Ian B MacLure]

Mike > wrote in news:e527ff46-af05-4157-a7c1-
:

> http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1268.shtml
>
> TANKER CONTROVERSY: QUESTIONS THE AIR FORCE MUST ANSWER
> Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Issue Brief
> May 28, 2008
>
> It is now three months since the Air Force shocked the world by
> awarding the contract for its next-generation aerial-refueling tanker
> to Northrop Grumman and the European parent of Airbus. Throughout
> that time, service officials have insisted that the process by which
> the winner was chosen was transparent and fair. But the service has
> failed to answer even the most basic questions about how the decision
> was made to deny the contract to Boeing, the widely favored
> incumbent. The Government Accountability Office is expected to issue
> a ruling on Boeing's protest of the outcome in mid-June. Whatever it
> finds, the Air Force has some explaining to do..

Sez Bo(e)ing.

> 1. The Air Force says it would cost roughly the same amount to
> develop, manufacture and operate 179 next-generation tankers,
> regardless of whether they are based on the Boeing 767 or the Airbus
> A330. But the Airbus plane is 27% heavier than the Boeing plane, and
> burns over a ton more fuel per flight hour. With fuel prices headed
> for the upper stratosphere, how can both planes cost the same amount
> to build and operate over their lifetimes?

Evidently the concept of ton-miles/gallon is alien to Miiiister
Thompson...

> 2. The Air Force says it would be equally risky to develop the Boeing
> tanker or the Airbus tanker -- after forcing Boeing to substantially
> increase the time and money required to develop its version. But
> Boeing proposed to build its tanker on the same assembly line where it
> has already constructed hundreds of the same airframe, whereas Airbus
> proposes to build its tanker at a plant and with a workforce that
> don't yet exist in Alabama. How can the risks be equal?

This is done in many places. Why should this be any different.
And its not like Bo(e)ing doesn't have problems with integrating
dispersed manufacturing operations.

> 3. The Air Force says that a computerized simulation of how the
> competing tankers would function in an actual wartime scenario
> strongly favored the larger Airbus plane. But the simulation assumed
> longer runways, stronger asphalt and more parking space than actually
> exists at forward bases, and failed to consider the consequences of
> losing bases in wartime. How can such unrealistic assumptions be
> relevant to the selection of a next-generation tanker?

Both aircraft are designed to operate from long runways.
Chances are that available airfields will be able to accomodate
either type. Field Length at MTOW is of the order of 8000ft or so.

> 4. The Air Force says the Northrop-Airbus team received higher
> ratings on past performance than the Boeing team, based on a review of
> programs deemed similar to the future tanker. But Boeing built all
> 600 of the tankers in the current Air Force fleet, whereas Northrop
> and Airbus have never delivered a single tanker equipped with the
> refueling boom the Air Force requires. How can Northrop and Airbus
> have superior past performance?

The parameter in question is not just limited to tankers.

> I could go on. The Air Force refused to consider Boeing cost data
> based on 10,000,000 hours of operating the commercial version of the
> 767, substituting instead repair costs based on the 50-year-old KC-135
> tanker. It said it would not award extra points for exceeding key
> performance objectives, and then proceeded to award extra points. It
> said it wanted to acquire a "medium" tanker to replace its cold war
> refueling planes, and ended up picking a plane twice as big.

Bo(e)ing was playing coy with cost data. Evidently the AF
felt they weren't getting good data.

> Whatever else this process may have been, it definitely was not
> transparent. Even now, neither of the competing teams really
> understands why the competition turned out the way it did. It would
> be nice to hear from the Air Force about how key tradeoffs were made,
> because at present it looks like a double standard prevailed in the
> evaluation of the planes offered by the two teams.

The GAO is looking into that.
Not that I expect Bo(e)ing to accept their findings.

IBM

[Ian B MacLure]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in
:

[snip]

> Can we count the KC-10 Extender from MacAir? Or the Airbus tankers
> sold to other countries?

Funny thing. Bo(e)ing doesn't consider the KC-10 too big for the
mission. Wonder why that is....

> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> "Palace Cobra"
> www.thunderchief.org
>

[Ian B MacLure]

KENG > wrote in
:

[snip]

> BZZZZZT... Wrong. Note the word in the original queery "Successfully".
> Inherent in successfully includes passing fuel through that boom.
> Thanks but oh so wrong. Want to try again?

You mean through the boom to oh say an F-16 fer instance?
Happened a couple of weeks before the award.

IBM

[Ian B MacLure]

KENG > wrote in
:

[snip]

> While I wouldn't uses quite that language, I do admit that Airbus has
> managed to plaster a boom to a demonstrator and complete a transfer of
> fuel as a proof of concept. You do remember we were talking in the

And what about the Oz KC-30?

> context of why I beleive the USAFs selection of EADS for the new
> tanker production was wrong. At the time the USAF made the decision,
> there was only one that had produced and delivered a reliable flying
> boom equipped aircraft. And yes, I am aware that the KC-10 was built
> by Mcdonnell-Douglas which is now BOEING and was Boeing during the
> selection process.

Anyone who was in a senior position during the boom design
process for the KC-10 is probably long retired and hell even
junior folks on he KC-135 are retired and/or dead.
Much as I hate to agree with Vinnie.

IBM

[Leadfoot[_3_]]

"Ian B MacLure" > wrote in message
.. .
> Ed Rasimus > wrote in
> :
>
> [snip]
>
>> Can we count the KC-10 Extender from MacAir? Or the Airbus tankers
>> sold to other countries?
>
> Funny thing. Bo(e)ing doesn't consider the KC-10 too big for the
> mission. Wonder why that is....

The KC-10/DC-10/MD-11 production line has been closed down for a long time



>
>> Ed Rasimus
>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>> "When Thunder Rolled"
>> "Palace Cobra"
>> www.thunderchief.org
>>
>

[Leadfoot[_3_]]

> Boeing lost. Get over it. If you've been laid off, Northrop grumman
>is hiring.

They are protesting the contract award. They may have good grounds to do
so. The "Fat Lady" has not yet sung.

[Ian B MacLure]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in
:

>
> "Ian B MacLure" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Ed Rasimus > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Can we count the KC-10 Extender from MacAir? Or the Airbus tankers
>>> sold to other countries?
>>
>> Funny thing. Bo(e)ing doesn't consider the KC-10 too big for the
>> mission. Wonder why that is....
>
> The KC-10/DC-10/MD-11 production line has been closed down for a long
> time

Well d'uh....
Thank you Miiiister Obvious.
The question is:

Why doesn't Bo(e)ing criticize the KC-10?
Yeah its out of production but it would then need replacement
as well.

Bo(e)ing has no one to blame but themselves for losing this
competition.

IBM

[Ian B MacLure]

Mike Williamson > wrote in
:

[snip]

> But Boeing in their protest noted that a recent Air Force
> acquisition was overturned by the GAO (to Boeing's detriment,
> as I recall) over this exact issue (civilian cost data vs.
> military cost data), and that Boeing supplied cost estimate data
> as specified by Federal Acquisitions Regulations. Apparently the
> financial folks analyzing the data were not familiar with commercial
> cost data and chose to ignore it, even though the law required that it
> be provided and used for the evaluation (this was apparently the
> same thing that happened with the previously mentioned GAO appeal,
> so big oops on the evaluators if that is the case)

I would be very surprised to find out that such an obvious and
glaring error would have made it through the process. Remember
the AF knew this was going to be protestd and was, according to
all reports extraordinarily careful to make sure that every i
was dotted, and t crossed.

[snip]

> No matter what the finding, the loser is going to be rather sore,
> and probably for good reason (at least in thier own mind). EA/Northrop
> Grumman threatened to not even bid if they didn't get certain
> "concessions" on the criteria, since they initially determined
> that thier offering would not be competitive. It seems that the AF,
> in an effort to actually have a competition, promised that certain
> changes would be made, and scored it as such, but may not have actually
> gone to the trouble to change the request for proposals (or at least
> not before Boeing submitted their proposal). As a result the
> two companies were aiming at different targets, both certain that
> their target was what the Air Force was asking for (per my reading
> of the various protests, etc.- others may come to different
> conclusions).

NG was paying attention to the RFP. Anything even slightly hinky
such as something like you just mentioned would have raised an
enormous red flag to management. Bids of this type are hugely
expensive and one thing NG was not going to do was bid purely to
give the illusion of competition. NG nearly no-bid the contract
and why should they if there was no chance at all of winning.

> From Boeing's point of view, their proposed aircraft performance
> (fuel and cargo carriage), for one example, met both the minimum
> and optional targets in the original contract proposal, which
> specifically stated that capacity above those specifications
> would receive no extra credit (i.e. under the scoring rules the
> two aircraft should have identical scores for fuel and cargo capacity,
> since both met the highest target). EA on the other hand, would
> argue that they were assured that their aircraft WOULD receive
> consideration for its extra capacity- which seems reasonable,
> but also seems to be clearly denied in the original request.
> Since the request also specifically limited the contract to
> replacing KC-135's, stating that a different tanker design
> competition (KC-Y, I believe) would be used to provide a
> large tanker, there seems to be a valid reason for not scoring
> "excess" capacity in these categories, so both arguments are
> rational, although only one can "win" in the end.

The original RFP was probably a riff on the leasing deal specs.
Small wonder it would look like the 767. When it became an open
competition the rules had to change. Bo(e)ing, from what I
understand thought there was no good reason to bid anything other
than the 767. They were wrong.

> It wouldn't be the first time an acquisition happened (or
> ended up NOT happening) because the folks who were scoring
> something weren't the folks who wrote the requirement, and
> didn't actually want (or even know) what the requirement called
> for. It also seems to show that trying to develop/tweak/adjust
> your scoring criteria after the event makes for an ugly process.

And if Dhimmicrap politicians are allowed to further pervert
the acquisition process ( beyond the damage Klintoon apparently
did ) that will be even uglier.

IBM

[Eugene Griessel]

Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>On Wed, 28 May 2008 21:46:49 GMT, (Eugene
>Griessel) wrote:
>
>>KENG > wrote:
>>
>>>>> One question. Please name one aerospace manufacturer (other than
>>>>> Boeing) that has successfully built an aircraft utilizing a flying
>>>>> boom.
>>
>>Did it ever occur to you that only the USAAF has ever needed such a
>>thing? Nobody else has aircraft that big and that thirsty to make it
>>necessary or cost effective. I do suggest that technology pioneered
>>almost 60 years ago would not be that difficult for any modern
>>aerospace manufacturer to replicate, if they ever needed to.
>>
>>Eugene L Griessel
>
>Maybe the essential element to take note of is that the flying boom
>for the Northrop/EADS tanker is made in the USA. Also the engines. Oh,
>and the avionics. And lots of other little pieces/parts.

That's standard for most large military projects - bits and pieces
come from everywhere.

Eugene L Griessel

Everybody lies about sex.

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

[Leadfoot[_3_]]

> Boeing lost. Get over it. If you've been laid off, Northrop grumman
>is hiring.

They are protesting the contract award. They may have good grounds to do
so. The "Fat Lady" has not yet sung.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 18:01:53 -0400, KENG > wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 16:37:20 -0400, KENG > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Starshiy wrote:
>>>
>>>>>It is now three months since the Air Force shocked the world
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No Sir, only the US !!!
>>>>
>>>
>>>One question. Please name one aerospace manufacturer (other than Boeing)
>>>that has successfully built an aircraft utilizing a flying boom.
>>>
>>>KenG
>>
>>
>> Can we count the KC-10 Extender from MacAir? Or the Airbus tankers
>> sold to other countries?
>>
>> Ed Rasimus
>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>> "When Thunder Rolled"
>> "Palace Cobra"
>> www.thunderchief.org
>Ed,
>One point. MacAir is now Boeing. My point being that Boeing holds the
>vast majority of historical knowledge of flying boom technology. On your
>other point, I was not aware of any other aircraft utilizing flying boom
> refueling. I am always willing to admit fault in the face of evidence
>to the contrary... I've heard of a plethora of probe-and-drogue
>aircraft, but I've heard of no other flying boom aircraft (other than
>the Boeing and MDAC offerings).
>
Then that in & of itself might be the reason to select someone else.
So that the Technology knowledge is spread around, and perhaps a clean
sheet of paper approach to the design can be used resulting in
improvements as opposed to replicating 60 year old technology.
--
"Before all else, be armed" -- Machiavelli

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 29 May 2008 02:05:23 -0700, "Leadfoot" >
wrote:

>
>
>
>> Boeing lost. Get over it. If you've been laid off, Northrop grumman
>>is hiring.
>
>They are protesting the contract award. They may have good grounds to do
>so. The "Fat Lady" has not yet sung.
>
Everybody protests awards they didn't get. It is the great American
whinnying way.
--
"Before all else, be armed" -- Machiavelli

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Ian B MacLure" > wrote in message
.. .
> KENG > wrote in
> :
>
> [snip]
>
>> While I wouldn't uses quite that language, I do admit that Airbus has
>> managed to plaster a boom to a demonstrator and complete a transfer of
>> fuel as a proof of concept. You do remember we were talking in the
>
> And what about the Oz KC-30?
>
>> context of why I beleive the USAFs selection of EADS for the new
>> tanker production was wrong. At the time the USAF made the decision,
>> there was only one that had produced and delivered a reliable flying
>> boom equipped aircraft. And yes, I am aware that the KC-10 was built
>> by Mcdonnell-Douglas which is now BOEING and was Boeing during the
>> selection process.
>
> Anyone who was in a senior position during the boom design
> process for the KC-10 is probably long retired and hell even
> junior folks on he KC-135 are retired and/or dead.
> Much as I hate to agree with Vinnie.
>
> IBM


its called "institutional memory"

[Tiger]

KENG wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> KENG wrote:
>>
>>> One point. MacAir is now Boeing.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It wasn't Boeing when it successfully built the KC-10, an aircraft
>> utilizing a flying boom.
>>
>>
> You are indeed correct, but we are talking now about an aircraft yet to
> be built. The knowledgebase that would be building this aircraft (should
> it be built by Boeing) would rely on that wealth of knowledge be it
> traditional Boeing, or Mcdonnell-Douglas Division of Boeing.
> KenG

Wealth of knowlege? This is getting thick. It's a tanker not a Space
shuttle or a wonder bra. A gas tank with wings. You fill it up with
fuel, fly straight and level & gas up jets. The flying boom is not
exactly the greatest invention since pop tarts. Based on the facts so
far Boeing is not offering anything earthshattering in design, in
performance or price. The job shift to Alabama is at best a net plus.
Boeing already has enough government & airline contracts for years to
come. This cheerleading for a multi billion dollar corporation is
getting silly....

[J.McEachen[_2_]]

This reminds me of USAF in the early 1960's when someone realized that a
hook mounted on their tactical a/c with inexpensive 'arresting gear' at
the ends of their runways (USN often used old anchor chain down both
sides of the runway with a cable rigged across so as you pulled out the
anchor chain, you'd be pulling more and more of it) would stop wayward
a/c from drifting off the end of the runway. USN offered their
specifications and designs but USAF decided they could do better. Hooks
were fitted on some a/c by 1963, of a new and improved USAF design. I
trust by the time USAF acquired the F4H/F-4 Phantom II it was fitted
with their exclusive hook design which obviously was better than USN's.
Are they still different? Does USAF use hooks anymore?
Joel McEachen VAH-5


Tiger wrote:
> KENG wrote:
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>> KENG wrote:
>>>
>>>> One point. MacAir is now Boeing.
>>>>
>>> It wasn't Boeing when it successfully built the KC-10, an aircraft
>>> utilizing a flying boom.
>>>
>> You are indeed correct, but we are talking now about an aircraft yet
>> to be built. The knowledgebase that would be building this aircraft
>> (should it be built by Boeing) would rely on that wealth of knowledge
>> be it traditional Boeing, or Mcdonnell-Douglas Division of Boeing.
>> KenG
>
> Wealth of knowlege? This is getting thick. It's a tanker not a Space
> shuttle or a wonder bra. A gas tank with wings. You fill it up with
> fuel, fly straight and level & gas up jets. The flying boom is not
> exactly the greatest invention since pop tarts. Based on the facts so
> far Boeing is not offering anything earthshattering in design, in
> performance or price. The job shift to Alabama is at best a net plus.
> Boeing already has enough government & airline contracts for years to
> come. This cheerleading for a multi billion dollar corporation is
> getting silly....

[Ian B MacLure]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in
:

>
>
>
>> Boeing lost. Get over it. If you've been laid off, Northrop grumman
>>is hiring.
>
> They are protesting the contract award. They may have good grounds to
> do so. The "Fat Lady" has not yet sung.

Well, the GAO is due to pass judgement on that in mid June.
And then of course Bo(e)ing's pet politicians will try to torpedo
the contract delaying the acquisition yet again.

IBM

[Ian B MacLure]

(Eugene Griessel) wrote in news:483e3b4a.1046705
@news.uunet.co.za:

> Ed Rasimus > wrote:

[snip]

>>Maybe the essential element to take note of is that the flying boom
>>for the Northrop/EADS tanker is made in the USA. Also the engines. Oh,
>>and the avionics. And lots of other little pieces/parts.
>
> That's standard for most large military projects - bits and pieces
> come from everywhere.

Precisely. System Integration is the name of the game these days
and one of the pieces could very well be an airframe. You don't
need to be an airframer ( a la Bo(e)ing ) to put together the
required system.

IBM

[Ian B MacLure]

"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in
:

[snip]

> its called "institutional memory"

Well, on that score, NG remembers how they got burned on the
the F-20 Tigershark ( by the AF ) and vowed never to let that
happen again.

IBM

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

J.McEachen wrote:
>
> This reminds me of USAF in the early 1960's when someone realized
> that a hook mounted on their tactical a/c with inexpensive 'arresting
> gear' at the ends of their runways (USN often used old anchor chain
> down both sides of the runway with a cable rigged across so as you
> pulled out the anchor chain, you'd be pulling more and more of it)
> would stop wayward a/c from drifting off the end of the runway. USN
> offered their specifications and designs but USAF decided they could
> do better. Hooks were fitted on some a/c by 1963, of a new and
> improved USAF design. I trust by the time USAF acquired the F4H/F-4
> Phantom II it was fitted with their exclusive hook design which
> obviously was better than USN's. Are they still different?
>

They never were different.


>
> Does USAF use hooks anymore?

Yes.

[Peter Stickney[_2_]]

Ian B MacLure wrote:

> "Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in
> :
>
> [snip]
>
>> its called "institutional memory"
>
> Well, on that score, NG remembers how they got burned on the
> the F-20 Tigershark ( by the AF ) and vowed never to let that
> happen again.

So how, exactly did they (Northrop) get burned?
The F-5G/F-20 was an interesting little airplane, but it fell
far short of being anything that the USAF was going to find useful.
Due to the performance loss that is inevitable when you hang a big
like a Sparrow on such a small airframe, and the lack of space for
stuff like the IFF interrogators that were a necessary part of the
systems, there was no way that it could compete with the F-16A ADF
as an interceptor. (Especially when the F-16As had already been bought
and paid for.)
As a fighter-bomber, it made an F-16 look like a champion weightlifter.
(Wall to wall Mk 82, all the way to the end of the runway.)
As an Air Superiority fighter, it wasn't going to be competitive without
a new, much bigger wing.

There was no way that, even if they wanted another fighter type,
the USAF was going to open new logistical lines, support schools,
and all the other jazz for an airplane that was going to be second-best
in any role that it was going to be used.


--
Pete Stickney
Any plan where you lose you hat is a bad plan