, and and could not really stop but laughing at comments at the ends of the articles on how the information and facts over the last 8 years have been mangled and twisted to the point that people will only believe what is being advertised now, rather then doing research. And then turn it into countries vs countries over who should get what based out of where ever.
Some things have relevance and most things don't, but you can see were emotions run high, and people starting calling each other names.
Hard to get the contract when the game is rigged against you.
Not quite Bdouglas. It's more like bringing a sledgehammer to the cabinet maker's shop for finishing work.
KC-30 was ultimately too big for the job. After the Republicans left office and the civilian-controlled (political appointees nearly all of them) RFP was corrected to reflect KC-135 replacement size, the choice was obvious.
Glad the wiser folks at EADS thought this one through although a little competition may have helped with pricing and timetabling of the KC-767 offering. They should come back round when the aging fleet of KC-10s are up for replacement.
Hard to get the contract when the game is rigged against you.
How about getting the facts before typing such rubbish!!! How is it rigged against EADS? EADS had plenty of time to offer their smaller plane. Oh, wait it's too small and what they did offer was too big!!!
Obama should still split the contract on a performance basis if he wants a maximum of jobs and votes. The US could use the 100,000 jobs that would come fast from a split.
Why would it cost 100 million to put in a bid. Can't they use the last bid package and tweak it?
"Hard to get the contract when the game is rigged against you" - This is a ludicrous statement period!! Airbus is a European Government subsidised entity that has cost the US tremendously (affirmed by the recent WTO ruling). When the Europeans ordered the government subsidized (no risk) A400 military transporter did they invite other vendors to bid for it? Heck no they ordered hundreds of the plane without any bid whatsover but have the gall to tell the US that we need to open our purchases to all the Europeans. GO FLY A KITE!!
EADS lives and breathes based on politics. Why? They are owned by governments, not capitalists.
Wonder if we could still get parts for their beasts if France gets ticked off at us? Suppose Spain or France becomes a Muslim nation, are parts coming out way?
A split buy is not in the best interests of the USAF. This would require the addition of another set of crews, maintenance staff, and spares on top of the 3 required once replacement has begun. It also more than doubles the early development costs of the KC-X program. The taxpayers already have enough on their's and their great great grandchildren's backs.
KC45 is dead. Sorry Airbus. A330 is not our cup of tea in the refueling department and military aircraft development is obviously not yours.
Go fly a kite? It's more like go suck a refueling boom.
EADS was in a no-win situation. If the RFP called for a bigger plane with credits for "extra" capabilities, Boeing would use the 777 platform. The 777 might have advantage over the A330.
Might?
Do you suppose the French would consider buying 767 based Tankers?
Do you suppose the French would consider buying 767 based Tankers?
What? As a joke? France is among the most protectionist country on the planet.
Look at the failing A400 fiasco/programme. US/Canada's Pratt Whitney had an engine for this aeroplane, but the French and EADS said Non! Pure protectionism at its worst.
Thankfully Thompson knows more than the pro-Airbus stooge Scotty Hamilton who believes that EADS will get a 90 day extension and still bid. Not gonna happen. Thompson has bar far been the most accurate on this RFP eveb better than Aboualafia.
I think EADS will bid even if it's obvious that Boeing will win the new one.
Politically, AF desperately need a co-bidder and EADS doesn't want to make them angry. They already supply a lot of stuffs to the Pentagon, like hundreds of helicopters.
And there's a little chance that they successfully participate to the next bid of greater tankers.
How about getting the facts before typing such rubbish!!! How is it rigged against EADS? EADS had plenty of time to offer their smaller plane. Oh, wait it's too small and what they did offer was too big!!!
Just look at how the RFP is going to calculate fuel burn costs and you'll see how it's rigged.
- Each aircraft performs more than 8 (eight) takeoffs per mission on average.
- Speed of aircraft is neglected.
- Different mission profiles for aircraft wear and fuel burn estimations
- Use as airlifter just like KC-135 and not like KC-10
- Reserve fuel at end of mission as percentage of fuel load at takeoff
- Same average of training missions while simulators will also be ordered.
- Fleet effectiveness value for refueling is neglected
- Fleet effectiveness value for airlift is nowhere considered within the whole RFP
According to these settings a slower and less efficient aircraft is preferred. 
according to Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the non-profit Lexington Institute.
Attention! These are guys that are directly paid by Boeing
On 9 June 2008 the Press-Register reported that almost all funding for the Lexington Institute came from the defense contractors whose products it frequently wrote in favor of.
We are taking for a ride again by "analysts", "non-profit" is this case to suggest some independence.
Well, if it confirms your opinion it's all right. Customer stisfaction rules.
Stay awake Aubrey.
The Airbus A330 MRTT, as presently certified by the Europeans (EASA), does not meet all the mandatory KC-X RFP requirements. To comply with the KC-X RFP Airbus will need to do a major rework of the airframe. Some say that Airbus will try and pawn off the A330 MRTT on the USAF. The Aussies took the bait, will the USAF? This is going to be interesting.
The USAF should take a hard look at the Italian and Japanese KC767 projects and ask themselves if this is the best they can get.
It's not about the best the USAF can get. It's all about meeting the mandatory specifications and low price. Some people, especially EADS/Airbus, don't like it, but that is how the RFP was written."It's all about meeting the mandatory specifications and low price. Some people, especially EADS/Airbus, don't like it, but that is how the RFP was written."
Yes, written or heavy influenced by Boeing.
The A330 based tanker Airbus is offering for a replacement for the KC-135 is just too big. The RFPs have always favored the smaller B767. Not until US Senator John McCain forced the USAF to amend the original RFP did Airbus ever stand a chance of winning with their larger flying gas station, troop carrier, and cargo transport; and only when the USAF didn't follow their own stated rules for scoring the proposals.
It's now back to a KC-135 replacement RFP, the USAF has to follow the rules, NG has dropped out of the bidding and EADS/Airbus is crying foul.
I did not do all of them but this is about where I stopped reading. A lot good stuff was said, and a lot weird "I've been feed information" was said more.
So what do you guys think? And I was just giving the Tanker situation as a example, I'm pretty sure you guys know other articles like the "Slow flying kit planes stall and crash" story.
Pages: 1
