WT Forums

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
There is a reason why 767's no longer sell on the civlian market - A-330's are 15+ years newer technology. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It still looks like an aluminum tube with swept wings and big turbofans to me.


<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
"We will team with a major American partner, expand our industrial footprint in the United States, employ American workers and pledge to offer the finest military capability for the United States Air Force at the best value to our taxpayers," Crosby said.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Kiss my ass you French sympathizer.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Wolfowitz's letter, dated Friday, essentially accepts an interpretation of the defense authorization bill offered by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., an Armed Services Committee member and fierce critic of the tanker deal. McCain said the bill brings the Air Force's plan "back to square one" with a "full and open competition" required.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

A full and open competition would include clean sheet of paper designs from all qualified design houses. This one seems to be restricted to two bidders with off the shelf aircraft.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>In a Senate floor speech last week, McCain released a series of internal Pentagon e-mails that he said show "a systemic Air Force failure in procurement oversight, willful blindness or rank corruption" in pursuit of the Boeing deal.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Senator McCain must be running for reelection soon. A member of the infamous "Keating Five" should not be throwing around corruption allegations. Screw him.

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

Edited by - a10stress on Nov 23 2004 2:23 PM

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
When you look at how many parts of the 777 and 7e7 are not built in the US, a LM/EADS KC-330 would be no less foreign than the Boeing offering.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I am well aware of that. The final nail in the coffin of the Republic Aviation works in Long Island was the loss of the B-747 "feathers" production to Fuji Heavy. After 20 years of making them, Boeing gave the job to Fuji because they were offering to lose money to buy-in. Business is business. I'm pretty sure there are no French <spit> components on Boeing jets though.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
From what Airbus says, most of the plane will be built in the US likely at LM, using GE engines and other US suppliers, it will come with a centerline boom and two drogue chutes on each wingtip (something the Boeing offering did not come with,) and will do so at an equivalent or cheaper price than what Boeing can offer. The A-330 will offer longer range, more fuel, and more cargo space than the Boeing 767 offering. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Right. The A330 is the all singin' all dancin' tanker/cargo/space plane of the 21st century, and they are prepared to give it away at bargain prices. Step this way ladies and gentlemen. One thin dime will get you an A330. She walks, she talks, she crawls on her belly like a reptile...
And why do we care how much cargo space there is?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
IF Boeing does not come up with a new tanker design off the 777 or something...
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It looks to me like you have made the selection already based on Airbus promotional press releases. That's one way to go. Tell your congressman he better give the job to EADS because they sure know how to put together a good brochure.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I'm rooting for the best product at the best price and that doesn't look like the KC-767.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


It will be tough to get some with a unique appearance. Twinjet airliners look like brothers and sisters. A clean sheet of paper design might be what you are looking for.

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

the problem here is remember Kerry was accusing BUSH of doing nothing to save Boeing from airbus. my thoughts are this will come down to political not performance based contract. Because no one wants to be known as killing boeing and american aviation contractors. Remember we dont buy navy ships from overseas even thought the cost of production would be infinitly cheaper.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Extra cargo room does play a important factor, and if the KC-330 can offer more of it on top of fuel offload, that is that many less airframes needed when deploying a squadron of F-16's or A-10's overseas.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

There is no such thing as a free lunch, and you don't get something for nothing. It might make some sense for a small air force that only has 5 tankers to specify double duty, but not for the USAF. Compromises made to carry cargo make it less of a tanker. Time, talent, money and weight budget spent on cargo handling features and equipment can not be spent on tanker optimization. Buy tankers to haul fuel and trash haulers to haul trash. You'll be glad you did.

A real and open competition would first establish the best combination of performance for the USAF and then have qualified bidders try and meet that performance, usually in a way of their choosing. The cost versus performance of these paper designs can be compared head to head. I really don't think a converted wide body twin jet is an optimum airplane, unless the off the shelf requirement is levied. Then you could probably flip a coin and get a satisfactory product. Under those circumstances, political considerations will percolate to the top.

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

<i>The tanker procurement started in 2001 as corporate welfare for Boeing after 9/11 demolished their commercial sales propects. The USAF needed tankers in the near future and Boeing had the expertise and capacity to make tankers now. Everyone was anxious about the economy going down, especially congessmen running for reelection. As a pork project, this one was not bad. At least the USAF got some useful hardware out of it, so they were on board. For a while it was a model of interdisciplinary cooperation. It was envisioned as a shot in the arm to get Boeing out of a tight spot. Well, it looks like Boeing was injured by 9/11 but not gravely. In fact, one of their own (Sears?) caused more harm to the company than 9/11 with the Druyun scandal. The bureaucrats started doing what they do, and low and behold, what was supposed to be a fast track procurement is now dragging into a more normal 5 years. Lesson: Don't try to end run the established process.</i>

<b>COMPETITION TO MODERNIZE USAF TANKERS COULD TAKE YEARS:</b> A competition to upgrade or replace the U.S. Air Force's aging KC-135 tankers could take as little as six months or as long as several years, depending on the option chosen, a service official said Nov. 23. Holding a competition to replace the engines on the KC-135Es would take roughly six months, while soliciting and evaluating proposals for a new commercial derivative aircraft, such as a Boeing 767 or Airbus A330, would probably take at least 18 months, said Air Force acquisition chief Marvin Sambur. Picking a contractor to develop a new aircraft for Air Force refueling needs could take several years, Sambur said. An analysis of alternatives (AOA) is assessing these and other options for modernizing the Air Force's refueling capability. Deputy SECDEF Paul Wolfowitz wrote in a Nov. 19 letter to Congress that a competition will be held once the "appropriate alternative" is chosen. The AOA is scheduled to be finished by the end of November, although there have been signs that the study's completion could be delayed until December or January. (Aerospace Daily & Defense Report)




THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????