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?