How Boeing steered tanker bid

On 13 Apr 2004 22:26:24 -0700, (sid) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..

http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/busi...on/8317604.htm
Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking on
condition of anonymity.

-HJC

"On condition of anonymity" is news speak for "delusional idiot". Utterly
useless as a source of facts.

Al Minyard

This, direct from the report:
• Statutory Provisions for Testing. Comply with Sections 2366 and 2399
of title 10, United States Code for determining the operational
effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the Boeing 767A
Tanker aircraft before proceeding beyond low-rate initial production
and committing to the subsequent production of all 100 Boeing KC-767A
Tanker aircraft. By not complying with the statutory provisions, the
Boeing KC-767A Tanker aircraft delivered to the warfighter may not be
operationally effective, suitable, and survivable (Issue B-4

No, from the *supposed* report.

Al Minyard

sid wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..

http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/busi...on/8317604.htm
Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking on
condition of anonymity.

-HJC

"On condition of anonymity" is news speak for "delusional idiot". Utterly
useless as a source of facts.

Al Minyard

This, direct from the report:
• Statutory Provisions for Testing. Comply with Sections 2366 and 2399
of title 10, United States Code for determining the operational
effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the Boeing 767A
Tanker aircraft before proceeding beyond low-rate initial production
and committing to the subsequent production of all 100 Boeing KC-767A
Tanker aircraft. By not complying with the statutory provisions, the
Boeing KC-767A Tanker aircraft delivered to the warfighter may not be
operationally effective, suitable, and survivable (Issue B-4

Sounds like the same reason we didn't buy KC-747s.
(Iran did, though...)

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On 13 Apr 2004 22:26:24 -0700, (sid) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..

http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/busi...on/8317604.htm
Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking on
condition of anonymity.

-HJC

"On condition of anonymity" is news speak for "delusional idiot". Utterly
useless as a source of facts.

Al Minyard

This, direct from the report:
? Statutory Provisions for Testing. Comply with Sections 2366 and 2399
of title 10, United States Code for determining the operational
effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the Boeing 767A
Tanker aircraft before proceeding beyond low-rate initial production
and committing to the subsequent production of all 100 Boeing KC-767A
Tanker aircraft. By not complying with the statutory provisions, the
Boeing KC-767A Tanker aircraft delivered to the warfighter may not be
operationally effective, suitable, and survivable (Issue B-4

No, from the *supposed* report.

Al Minyard

Well, NO. This is from THE report. Note the osd.mil in the link Al...
http://www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/repor...4/04064sum.pdf

Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote in message ...
sid wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..

http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/busi...on/8317604.htm
Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking on
condition of anonymity.

-HJC

"On condition of anonymity" is news speak for "delusional idiot". Utterly
useless as a source of facts.

Al Minyard

This, direct from the report:
? Statutory Provisions for Testing. Comply with Sections 2366 and 2399
of title 10, United States Code for determining the operational
effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the Boeing 767A
Tanker aircraft before proceeding beyond low-rate initial production
and committing to the subsequent production of all 100 Boeing KC-767A
Tanker aircraft. By not complying with the statutory provisions, the
Boeing KC-767A Tanker aircraft delivered to the warfighter may not be
operationally effective, suitable, and survivable (Issue B-4

Sounds like the same reason we didn't buy KC-747s.
(Iran did, though...)
Yeah, and one blew up from a center tank explosion. Of course
"covered" LFT&E systems have the benefit of mitigating engineering to
prevent ullage explosions.

http://jas.jcs.mil/news/pdf/2003_fall.pdf

On 14 Apr 2004 18:24:32 -0700, (sid) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On 13 Apr 2004 22:26:24 -0700, (sid) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..

http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/busi...on/8317604.htm
Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking on
condition of anonymity.

-HJC

"On condition of anonymity" is news speak for "delusional idiot". Utterly
useless as a source of facts.

Al Minyard

This, direct from the report:
? Statutory Provisions for Testing. Comply with Sections 2366 and 2399
of title 10, United States Code for determining the operational
effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the Boeing 767A
Tanker aircraft before proceeding beyond low-rate initial production
and committing to the subsequent production of all 100 Boeing KC-767A
Tanker aircraft. By not complying with the statutory provisions, the
Boeing KC-767A Tanker aircraft delivered to the warfighter may not be
operationally effective, suitable, and survivable (Issue B-4

No, from the *supposed* report.

Al Minyard

Well, NO. This is from THE report. Note the osd.mil in the link Al...
http://www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/repor...4/04064sum.pdf


Note that the audit report concluded that the USAF should continue
the lease program, and receive up to 100 aircraft. If the aircraft were
as "bad" as you seem to think, they would not have stated that the
program should continue. Also not that the USAF has quite a few
KC-135R's that have been performing admirably without being
armed and/or armored. The report identifies some purported
problems with the procurement process, but it states unequivocally
that the procurement should go forward.

Thanks for the link.

Al Minyard

"sid" wrote in message
om...
Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote in message
...
sid wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message
. ..


http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/busi...on/8317604.htm
Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking
on
condition of anonymity.

-HJC

"On condition of anonymity" is news speak for "delusional idiot".
Utterly
useless as a source of facts.

Al Minyard

This, direct from the report:
? Statutory Provisions for Testing. Comply with Sections 2366 and 2399
of title 10, United States Code for determining the operational
effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the Boeing 767A
Tanker aircraft before proceeding beyond low-rate initial production
and committing to the subsequent production of all 100 Boeing KC-767A
Tanker aircraft. By not complying with the statutory provisions, the
Boeing KC-767A Tanker aircraft delivered to the warfighter may not be
operationally effective, suitable, and survivable (Issue B-4

Sounds like the same reason we didn't buy KC-747s.
(Iran did, though...)
Yeah, and one blew up from a center tank explosion. Of course
"covered" LFT&E systems have the benefit of mitigating engineering to
prevent ullage explosions.

FAA's new N2 membrane requirement will automatically inert the fuel tanks of
Airliners. The inerter will be a requirement on all new airliners built by
US and European manufacturers for US certification. I believe AI is
agreeing, but I have not seen any news articles about the issue.

Alan Minyard wrote in message

http://www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/repor...4/04064sum.pdf


Note that the audit report concluded that the USAF should continue
the lease program, and receive up to 100 aircraft. If the aircraft were
as "bad" as you seem to think, they would not have stated that the
program should continue. Also not that the USAF has quite a few
KC-135R's that have been performing admirably without being
armed and/or armored. The report identifies some purported
problems with the procurement process, but it states unequivocally
that the procurement should go forward.

Thanks for the link.

Al Minyard

You're welcome. Note too that it should *provided* that the issues set
forth in the report are resolved. I work with these aircraft types
(767, 737 NextGens, and worked with EMB-145s for several years) every
day and will be the first to say they are fine *airliners*. Warplanes
they are not. To take on that role they will need some expensive
modifications. That blows out the whole rationale of the lease deal.
To say KC-135Rs have done just fine with no suceptability reduction
for years is a fallacious argument. The USAF admitted they put their
tanker assets in harms way last year and expected losses. In past
conflicts, these assets have always had the luxury of operating in
sanctuaries. New tactics are now putting them deep into airspace they
previously never ventured, and long range SAM and AAW systems, which
are being explicitly built to shoot such aircraft down, have been
fielded or are in development.
The USAF response to the IG report concerning item B-4 is an exercise
in obfuscation. What they are not saying is that they hoped to use the
provisions in sec 2366 and 2399 which call for exemptions in full up
survivability testing. That's the only way they could ever make the
lease scheme work.
The modifications necessary in reducing vulnerability have not been
engineered, and if applied (after spending a bunch of unforecasted
money) to the leased aircraft would make them commercially useless
(Boeing would have to get them recertificated essentially -and that
costs big money) unless there are some changes to FAR Part 25.
So, as a recap, note what the *real* report stated:
• Statutory Provisions for Testing. Comply with Sections 2366 and 2399
of title 10, United States Code for determining the operational
effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the Boeing 767A
Tanker aircraft before proceeding beyond low-rate initial production
and committing to the subsequent production of all 100 Boeing KC-767A
Tanker aircraft. By not complying with the statutory provisions, the
Boeing KC-767A Tanker aircraft delivered to the warfighter may not be
operationally effective, suitable, and survivable.
The USAF would do well to just ****can this whole idea and spend the
money on feilding a KC-X built to meet this century's threats.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"sid" wrote in message
om...
Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote in message
...
sid wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message
. ..


http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/busi...on/8317604.htm
Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking
on
condition of anonymity.

-HJC

"On condition of anonymity" is news speak for "delusional idiot".
Utterly
useless as a source of facts.

Al Minyard

This, direct from the report:
? Statutory Provisions for Testing. Comply with Sections 2366 and 2399
of title 10, United States Code for determining the operational
effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the Boeing 767A
Tanker aircraft before proceeding beyond low-rate initial production
and committing to the subsequent production of all 100 Boeing KC-767A
Tanker aircraft. By not complying with the statutory provisions, the
Boeing KC-767A Tanker aircraft delivered to the warfighter may not be
operationally effective, suitable, and survivable (Issue B-4

Sounds like the same reason we didn't buy KC-747s.
(Iran did, though...)
Yeah, and one blew up from a center tank explosion. Of course
"covered" LFT&E systems have the benefit of mitigating engineering to
prevent ullage explosions.

FAA's new N2 membrane requirement will automatically inert the fuel tanks of
Airliners. The inerter will be a requirement on all new airliners built by
US and European manufacturers for US certification. I believe AI is
agreeing, but I have not seen any news articles about the issue.

The only requirement proposed that I've seen is to inert a heated CWT
(Center Wing Tank) only by using OBIGS.
http://www.faa.gov/newsroom/factshee...s/inerting.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/newsroom/factshee...ets_030729.htm
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m.../article.jhtml

While the system could be used to inert the wing tanks the plumbing
would be a much bigger expense beyond whats outlined in the NPRM, the
airlines are fighting the proposal for even the CWT OBIGS.

Wing tanks (which flame quite nicely when hit by hydrodynamic ram
inducing shrapnel) will not be protected. DHL and the Concorde, both
of which were hit by small shrapnel pieces, show just how nicely:
http://www.concordesst.com/accident/accidentindex.html
http://gallery.colofinder.net/dhl-ai...le12102003a003

This shows the shrapnel puncture that started the wing fire. Judging
by the rivet heads to the right of the hole, it appears the piece was
somewhere around 6 inches long.
http://gallery.colofinder.net/dhl-ai...le12042003a009

On 15 Apr 2004 15:30:01 -0700, (sid) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message

http://www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/repor...4/04064sum.pdf


Note that the audit report concluded that the USAF should continue
the lease program, and receive up to 100 aircraft. If the aircraft were
as "bad" as you seem to think, they would not have stated that the
program should continue. Also not that the USAF has quite a few
KC-135R's that have been performing admirably without being
armed and/or armored. The report identifies some purported
problems with the procurement process, but it states unequivocally
that the procurement should go forward.

Thanks for the link.

Al Minyard

You're welcome. Note too that it should *provided* that the issues set
forth in the report are resolved. I work with these aircraft types

I agree that we disagree on this project.

Al Minyard

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

Tarverisms from the past:
That is false, even the 777 has a DC generator for each engine

Yep, I checked that when I was a systems engineer at BCAG Everett.

Does Knoyle ever get anything right?

Wrong.

777 has an IDG (AC) and a backup generator (again AC) on each engine.
The backup generator is variable speed, variable frequency (i.e., AC).

I suggest you read ATA 24 of the 777 maintenance manual.

Mosher