TANKER CONTROVERSY: QUESTIONS THE AIR FORCE MUST ANSWER

"Leadfoot" wrote in
:


"Ian B MacLure" wrote in message
.. .
Ed Rasimus wrote in
news
[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

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

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 -

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.

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

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

"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"

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....

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....

"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