Is newsmax reliable?

at least 3 times i have received an email from NewsMax asking that we " tell our congressmen to save money... by allowing EADS to build the next AF tanker".

Does newsmax have the same people working for them as work for Mc Cain, paid lobbyists for EADS? When the news broke that Mc Cains' team includes those who have lobbied for EADS and this tanker contract, i thought all H*** was going to break loose, since McCain singlehandedly stopped the previous Boeing lease effort.

Although that particular lease arrangement was highly suspect, it did not change the facts that the 767 was far superior in performing all of the required roles to the A330.

Having been in the USAF, i know the roles these tankers actually play, and more is better if you are supporting a large fighter force, not fewer.

These Newsmax add smell to high H****of having been "bought", and now i suspect anything Newsmax sends out.

Nowhere did the award mention that EADS threatened to pull out of the competition unless the AF changed its rules to suit them.

Actually, 40% will be built by EADS.

We have a hybrid-tanker that will be built in a facility in the US that has not been built, yet, and then assembled 60/40 between NG and EADS.

Oh, and this EADS tanker has never been built and all media showing their in-flight hook-ups are still photos only, no video, and were not “wet” (actually passing gas). Does the boom actually function? Who knows. They never built a tanker before and never built a boom before.

Boeing, on the other hand, has a tanker their have built and already sold (Italy and Japan).

Which program is more risky?

Boeing. . . if you are to believe the USAF.

More costly? The extra fuel the EADS tanker carries makes the jet less efficient and burn more gas. The cost of burning the excess gas will be the same cost that the USAF would pay for the Boeing tanker.

Now, the national security question: Does it make sense to out-source our national security? I was in London when the decision was announced on Friday. On Monday, on one of those morning chat shows, a guy said something along the lines of, “. . .and when the United States decides to engage in another silly adventure like Iraq, we can slow deliveries or even suspend them. We can now force American foreign policy. . . “

Not surprising, actually, as this is why we (the US) sell arms—to have access and influence.

Bottom line: Bad choice due to excess cost, less tanker access to airports, and putting the US at risk. Not good.

Now, the national security question: Does it make sense to out-source our national security?

According to McCain, it's terrific! He fights against "Buy American" provisions. From the 1996 Congressional Record [Page: S451] (Defense Auth Act - Conf Rpt):

BUY AMERICA
Mr. President, let me take a moment to discuss the `Buy America' restrictions in this bill. The conferees did remove a waiver provision which would have had the unintended consequence of rewarding nations with a history of retaliatory trade practices. However, the bill adds `Buy America' restrictions for propellers, ball bearings, and many other items which, frankly, are counterproductive to our ongoing trade relations with our most important allies.
As an example, the British placed orders for approximately $5 billion in United States-made defense articles last year; United States orders of British-made defense items totaled only about $800 million last year, a ratio of 4-to-1 to our economic advantage. This is a somewhat unusual year, in terms of the size of British orders to United States companies. I am advised that, on average, the British Government purchases twice as much defense equipment from the United States as we do from them.
Yet, even with this obvious economic advantage to the United States of doing business with the British Government, the new restrictions in this conference agreement would require the Pentagon to purchase many items from United States manufacturers rather than allowing competition from British and other foreign manufacturers. The result is that the U.S. taxpayer will not necessarily get the best deal on the price of these goods, and our trade relations with our allies will suffer as a result.
(snip)

I'm disgusted by his words and hate it when we threaten national security in the name of trade or place some unwritten rule (like we should buy as much from them as they buy from us). When it comes to defense, I really don't care if our trade relations "suffer" a little or if the price tag is a bit higher. That said, I think the Northrop Grumman/EADS deal was fair and open--they won. No technology transfer is passing to the foreigners, and measures have been taken to prohibit access to any sensitive technology. In light of a decade of the globalist rhetoric demonstrated by McCain, above, I don't think we can get much better (for now).

>That said, I think the Northrop Grumman/EADS deal was fair and open—they won. No technology transfer is passing to the foreigners, and measures have been taken to prohibit access to any sensitive technology. In light of a decade of the globalist rhetoric demonstrated by McCain, above, I don't think we can get much better (for now). <<

Actually, fair and open is not exactly correct. The Air Force had to adjust the requirements to make EADS competitive. Further, NG has a modeling program that the USAF used to model how each proposed tanker would function and perform. Did you get that? The Air Force was using a NG program to evaluate Boeing's proposal, and the NG/EADS team knew the ins-and-outs of the program and can adjust their profiling numbers, numbers they allege but don't have empirical data. Interesting. The transfer of technology is an iffy process right now with "I promise" being the limiting factor when it comes to export (ITAR) limitations. Of course, all military transfers have that same standard, but with EADS, I am not so trusting. At the same time we were adjusting our proposal standards to allow EADS to bid, EADS was in the European Court defending their (France) prohibition against allowing Boeing to bid on their tanker program. 40,000 experienced and highly skilled jobs are in play for Boeing, whereas the original labor numbers for EADS began at 2,500, then rose to 25,000 when the proposal was under review, and now, in response to Boeing's protest (first one in 10-yrs, I might add), EADS upped the number to around 40,000. . . and no one notices? The cost doesn't support the EADS bid, the alleged performance of a blue-print jet does not support the EADS bid, the cost of operating an over-sized jet does not support the EADS jet, reduced access to airfields because the EADS jet is over-sized does not support its selection, the national security aspect can't be ignored and that means the EADS bid is shaky, the labor situation can't support a EADS bid (IAM union is dead-set against EADS), and the program of 179 jets or so for the initial bid that would run for a decade means our industrial base of engineers to skilled labor would be lost forever (this means that even if you remain convinced we can't get much better for now, we won't be able to get any better later). When the protest is ruled on I think you will be interested in the details that will reflect a flawed process. My guess, and it's only a guess, is the ruling will suggest (as the OMB may only recommend) the contract be set-aside and re-bid once the critical flaws in the process are fixed. >>When it comes to defense, I really don't care if our trade relations "suffer" a little or if the price tag is a bit higher.<< Gotcha. I don't give a fig if by buying American angers some country. Our national security demands the best America can provide, and relying on foreign sources to provide 40% of a critically important element of our national security does not protect America. In fact, it puts America at risk. Buying boots from a foreign source, no big deal. Buying billions of dollars of critical airframes at the cost of our national industrial base is not acceptable. But that's just me. . .

See post #12. You’re buying into a whole lot of hype.

I suggest that you learn more about a bidding process and the rules — you’ll find that Boeing is blowing smoke on at least half of what they are spinning. Both contractors work off the same RFP and are subject to the same evaluation factors. No changes take place during the process without applying to both contractors. Your allegations are hyperbolic.

And one more thing — EADS DID NOT WIN AN AF CONTRACT, Northrop Grumman did. EADS is no different than the multitude of other foreign suppliers that have teamed with U.S. defense suppliers to bid on contracts for decades. Rolls Royce engines come to mind.

In the 1980s, the U.S. Government promoted international offset arrangements on foreign sales of major weapon systems in an effort to reduce the per unit cost of products the USG was buying and to help lesser-developed countries establish their industrial base. That policy has continued to this day. Right or wrong, this tanker contract is not the only weapon system reliant on foreign parts.

>>You’re buying into a whole lot of hype<<

I suppose, to be fair, the same may be said of you.

>>. . .you’ll find that Boeing is blowing smoke on at least half of what they are spinning.<<

Really, exactly what facts are smoke?

>>Both contractors work off the same RFP and are subject to the same evaluation factors.<<

Yes, you are right on that.

>>No changes take place during the process without applying to both contractors.<<

Correct again, but that doesn't dispute the fact that after RFP release, changes were made that favored EADS/NG to ensure they had a “competitive” bid.

Basic facts do apply:
—RFP adjusted to allow EADS/NG to bid competitively
—Evaluation model used by Air Force was NG model, and by their own admission, NG states it is manpower intensive (in other words, need lots of manual data manipulation and a knowledge of the inner workings. And, of course, they know the codes and the workings. . .but hey, they wouldn't manipulate data, would they). . .right?
—Boeing bid met or exceeded all KC-767 requirements
—KC-30 bid is 53% larger than Boeing KC-767, and therefore, this larger size restricts where the KC-30 may deploy, whereas the Boeing jet ensures basing capabilities that the EADS/NG jet does not.
—Boeing KC-767 delivers more gas and is more efficient
—KC-767 has triple-seven flight deck, a 6th generation boom, excellent avionics, among other upgrades
—The 767 is lower risk because it has been built before, and Boeing has a history of building tankers, whereas EADS/NG has not.

Other facts are relevant:
—The cost of the Boeing tanker is re-couped from fuel savings
—Over the lifetime of the jet, a $4B savings is gained through less maintenance demands when compared to KC-30.
—Cost and fuel savings of the Boeing jet far exceeds the EADS/NG proposal

Further,
Boeing jet designed, built and delivered by Americans, whereas, KC-30 is an Airbus design, manufactured in Europe and then finished in the US
—44,000 US jobs, that ensure our nations ability to make and support critically important and complex aircraft, with 85% US content in the Boeing jet

The facts on cost and basing and performance are not disputed by the Air Force.

The Air Force assigned a higher risk to Boeing bid, that that was the pivot-point in the selection, and “risk” is subjective.

So, the Air Force said the Boeing bid-—a currently flying aircraft-—was more risky than a bid based on an Airbus design, partially built by EADS, in Europe, and then final assembly in a yet-to-be-built facility and by an inexperienced work-force. Hmmm. . . hard to go along with the Air Force on this one.

Reading and researching this subject, I simply can't go with the Air Force on this one.

>>EADS is no different than the multitude of other foreign suppliers that have teamed with U.S. defense suppliers to bid on contracts for decades.<<

Okay, which programs and to what extent? Thanks.

“Correct again, but that doesn’t dispute the fact that after RFP release, changes were made that favored EADS/NG to ensure they had a “competitive” bid.”

Some changes were related to the subsidiary dispute pending at the WTO against EADS and Boeing. Northrop Grumman had to include a risk into the proposal for EADS loosing the case; Boeing had not.

The final RFP favored the better plane.
How did Air Force come to that conclusion?

“Evaluation model used by Air Force was NG model, and by their own admission, NG states it is manpower intensive (in other words, need lots of manual data manipulation and a knowledge of the inner workings. And, of course, they know the codes and the workings. . .but hey, they wouldn’t manipulate data, would they). . .right?”

Not in all parts. It’s not a evaluation model, it’s a planing tool programed by NG and used by the Air Force. If Air Force altered settings I see nothing wrong. I think Air Force knows better about todays and future Air Mobility Command concepts than Boeing or NG.

“—Boeing bid met or exceeded all KC-767 [KC-X] requirements”

OK, and the NG KC-45 exceeds the KC-767.

“—KC-30 bid is 53% larger than Boeing KC-767, and therefore, this larger size restricts where the KC-30 may deploy, whereas the Boeing jet ensures basing capabilities that the EADS/NG jet does not.”

The Air Force concluded that the KC-45 can use about 50 % more airfields than the KC-767. Use your pocket calculator and you may find out that with the same space on the ground a KC-45 fleet takes up more fuel in the sky.

“—Boeing KC-767 delivers more gas and is more efficient”

... than the KC-135. That’s true. Boeing produces 12 767 a year and Airbus 6 A330 month. Guess which plane is more efficient in the eyes of airlines.

“—KC-767 has triple-seven flight deck, a 6th generation boom, excellent avionics, among other upgrades”

The KC-767AT proposed to US Air Force is as a paper design as the 6th generation boom is.

“—The 767 is lower risk because it has been built before, and Boeing has a history of building tankers, whereas EADS/NG has not.”

The last tanker deal went to McDonnell Douglas with KC-10. The Air Force rated the risk for the Boeing proposal higher. The KC-30B for Australia with the same boom as for US Air Force is on schedule to enter service in 2009.

“—The cost of the Boeing tanker is re-couped from fuel savings”

US Air Force and many airlines think differently. If you want to deliver just 1 pound of fuel a KC-767 is more fuel efficient but a Piper Super Cup will do better then.

“—Over the lifetime of the jet, a $4B savings is gained through less maintenance demands when compared to KC-30.”

Air Force rated both equal. What is your source?

“—Cost and fuel savings of the Boeing jet far exceeds the EADS/NG proposal”

Air Force rated the KC-45 air refueling efficiency and fuel efficiency higher. Air Force will need lees KC-45 to fulfill the same task as with KC-767.

“Reading and researching this subject, I simply can’t go with the Air Force on this one.”

I go rather with the Air Force than with Boeing on that.

Just look how Boeing is arguing:
“The historical average offload on a tanker mission is 60,000 to 70,000 pounds of fuel. The Air Force fuel offload requirement was set at 94,000 pounds of fuel at 1,000 nautical miles, comfortably above the historical average. The KC-767 exceeded the 94,000-pound requirement by 20 percent while remaining within the optimum size for medium tanker operations.”http://boeingblogs.com/tanker/archives/2008/05/sized_right_for_the_fight.html#more

According to Boeing in historical missions tankers offload about 70 % of its fuel capacity. Did the KC-10 also offload only 70,000 lb or did Boeing exclude the KC-10 in that calculation? Is the number just a factor so a KC-45 will offload on average also about 70 %?

Historical planes got piston engines. Why did the KC-767 got jet engines?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.