Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:26 pm
Link doesn't work.
Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:08 am
CAPFlyer wrote:Link doesn't work.
No, I'm afraid you are wrong there. The link was perfectly adequate, and came from the preferred link supplier. However some dubious foreign link turned up, offering a better linkage and backhanders to politicians on both sides, so both that and the original link are under investigation, and there is no link available. Eventually the preferred supplier link will be available again, but only after exhaustive cost of link analysis.
Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:11 am
[quote="JDK"][quote="CAPFlyer"]Link doesn't work.[/quote]
No, I'm afraid you are wrong there. The link was perfectly adequate, and came from the preferred link supplier. However some dubious foreign link turned up, offering a better linkage and backhanders to politicians on both sides, so both that and the original link are under investigation, and there is no link available. Eventually the preferred supplier link will be available again, but only after exhaustive cost of link analysis.[/quote]
What??????????????
No, I'm afraid you are wrong there. The link was perfectly adequate, and came from the preferred link supplier. However some dubious foreign link turned up, offering a better linkage and backhanders to politicians on both sides, so both that and the original link are under investigation, and there is no link available. Eventually the preferred supplier link will be available again, but only after exhaustive cost of link analysis.
[/quote]
What??????????????
Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:14 pm
I continue to see references to "if Boeing hadn't bribed.." and other dumb attempts to beat a dead horse once again. The INDIVIDUALS involved in the original situations are the INDIVIDUALS who have , or, are doing time in graybar city or have completely lost their careers and pensions over that, Boeing paid out $615 Million dollars in penalties over that incident, If you want to beat THAT horse, lets dig up the Lockheed C-5 program and the double dealing and 'oh, we forgots' surrounding that milestone of aviation and getting it bid and delivered. How about the Lockheed L-1011 bribes to airlines? too far back in your shallow history reserves?
No where in this have I seen anyone mention that 6 or 7 of the top dogs at AIRBUS/EADS resigned due to an insider stock trading deal in the very recent past while trying to recoup potential losses over the 380 (insider trading allegations sent that hag M Stewart to the slam, but not those guys). I further have not seen anyone here speak to the matter of AIRBUS being under WTO investigation over 'seed' money given, not loaned or signed for, given to EADS to cover startup costs and to cover losses if their latest whatever can't be given away to anyone, how many times has the A-350 been redesigned in the last few years? Do you suppose the re-design and engineering money for all that fell off a truck going around a corner?
I sincerely hope that during the upcoming Presidental debates whoever the Democratic candidate is pointedly asks the Senator from AIRBUS about this and keeps biting his leg until his dealings in this are brought to the light of day.
No where in this have I seen anyone mention that 6 or 7 of the top dogs at AIRBUS/EADS resigned due to an insider stock trading deal in the very recent past while trying to recoup potential losses over the 380 (insider trading allegations sent that hag M Stewart to the slam, but not those guys). I further have not seen anyone here speak to the matter of AIRBUS being under WTO investigation over 'seed' money given, not loaned or signed for, given to EADS to cover startup costs and to cover losses if their latest whatever can't be given away to anyone, how many times has the A-350 been redesigned in the last few years? Do you suppose the re-design and engineering money for all that fell off a truck going around a corner?
I sincerely hope that during the upcoming Presidental debates whoever the Democratic candidate is pointedly asks the Senator from AIRBUS about this and keeps biting his leg until his dealings in this are brought to the light of day.
Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:29 am
The Inspector wrote:I continue to see references to "if Boeing hadn't bribed.."...
And, on the other hand, presumably you've missed my repeated points about the entire history of defenc/se deals being, in the vernacular, 'bent'. Again, so what?
The whole playing surprised that the customer moved the goalposts, or that there's special interests and loose money is crocodile tears.
Regards,
Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:29 am
James,
As much as I respect your body of work, I think you are 'stuck in the groove' like an old 33 1/3 album and need to be nudged a bit.
Care to respond to the insider trading deal or the WTO'seed money' issues? Or are you just going to continue to flog a now very long dead horse?
Perhaps, since Oz hasn't much of an aviation industry, the importance and ramifications of this thing don't quite register on your radar. Pretty much every aircraft you use is a foreign purchase, so since it doesnot impact your tiny aviation constructing community, this whole thing is no big deal to you.
As I've stated before, the one thing I very much resent is my hard earned dollars are being taken as taxes to send my dollars overseas to purchase an aircraft that could be a bargaining chip down the road, and when we need spares or engineering and EADS gives the Pentagon the equivalant of John Cleeses rant from the castle in "Holy Grail'.
They will be taking jobs from my country in a time when our floppy eared, beady eyed clown of a President is shocked and 'didn't know' that gasoline is approaching $4 /gal here, and who believes that the 'conomy is weak cuz we've built too many houses' (!?!) and the USAF states that 'job retention was not considered' again, !?!. 44 thousand jobs lost is a big impact, lets toss 44 thousand Aussies out of work and see how high your back gets.
And CAPFLYER is correct in stating that the A310 line was restarted to provide UPS with aircraft that then allowed UPS to fly into Europe, prior to that, the EU was restricting or refusing entry permission to UPS 727's that had been through a very expensive re-engining program to make them cleaner and quieter because they weren't AIRBUS.
Not many UPS or FEDEX types I've talked with can find much good to say about the 310's, and if you ask the maintenance folks, the first ten minutes are filled with blue language and not so shaded invective directed towards a maintenance P.I.T.A.
I'm really glad your country selected the 330 tanker, my major question on that would be, what are the projected usage hours per aircraft per year, and percentage wise how do those hours stack up against the average hours per year the USAF puts on it tankers?
You all seem to be harping on 'it's an older design' but when introduced into inventory, what was the design age of the 707-320 that became AWACS? Somewhere North of 20 years and I hear no one whining about AWACS being 'an old airplane'
Whatever the outcome, my children and grandchildren will have to suffer the fruits of this decision
As much as I respect your body of work, I think you are 'stuck in the groove' like an old 33 1/3 album and need to be nudged a bit.
Care to respond to the insider trading deal or the WTO'seed money' issues? Or are you just going to continue to flog a now very long dead horse?
Perhaps, since Oz hasn't much of an aviation industry, the importance and ramifications of this thing don't quite register on your radar. Pretty much every aircraft you use is a foreign purchase, so since it doesnot impact your tiny aviation constructing community, this whole thing is no big deal to you.
As I've stated before, the one thing I very much resent is my hard earned dollars are being taken as taxes to send my dollars overseas to purchase an aircraft that could be a bargaining chip down the road, and when we need spares or engineering and EADS gives the Pentagon the equivalant of John Cleeses rant from the castle in "Holy Grail'.
They will be taking jobs from my country in a time when our floppy eared, beady eyed clown of a President is shocked and 'didn't know' that gasoline is approaching $4 /gal here, and who believes that the 'conomy is weak cuz we've built too many houses' (!?!) and the USAF states that 'job retention was not considered' again, !?!. 44 thousand jobs lost is a big impact, lets toss 44 thousand Aussies out of work and see how high your back gets.
And CAPFLYER is correct in stating that the A310 line was restarted to provide UPS with aircraft that then allowed UPS to fly into Europe, prior to that, the EU was restricting or refusing entry permission to UPS 727's that had been through a very expensive re-engining program to make them cleaner and quieter because they weren't AIRBUS.
Not many UPS or FEDEX types I've talked with can find much good to say about the 310's, and if you ask the maintenance folks, the first ten minutes are filled with blue language and not so shaded invective directed towards a maintenance P.I.T.A.
I'm really glad your country selected the 330 tanker, my major question on that would be, what are the projected usage hours per aircraft per year, and percentage wise how do those hours stack up against the average hours per year the USAF puts on it tankers?
You all seem to be harping on 'it's an older design' but when introduced into inventory, what was the design age of the 707-320 that became AWACS? Somewhere North of 20 years and I hear no one whining about AWACS being 'an old airplane'
Whatever the outcome, my children and grandchildren will have to suffer the fruits of this decision
Sat Mar 22, 2008 4:46 am
Goody.
You are right I don't give a monkey's about current aerospace. I treasure my massive ignorance, and the broken record is, clearly, just one of the unpalatable facts, or invariable factors, IMHO. (It reads just the same as to research I'm doing into certain US interwar airline and airmail scandals, and Australian-UK purchasing rorts.) It only interests me as future history, and, as here demonstration of how things stay the same.
I dunno where you got the idea my horizons are limited to Australia? I've written far more on US and UK aviation history than Australian, and, FYI, been published by French, Dutch, Belgian, Australian, American, Canadian and British aviation publications as well as running a multi-national publisher.
Should overseas aerospace history be of interest... the history of Australia's CAC, DAP, Hawker de Havilland etc, is full of similar examples to the case discussed here... but Australia's aerospace industry committed suicide, amply assisted by US flooding of the lightplane market etc. No tears there, just incompetents assisted to fail by foreign interests - sound familiar? Canada managed to plough a different furrow. Even I know it was neither easy, or 'fair' for our Canuckian cousins. Their southern neighbour, like the British Empire Preference Scheme wasn't interested in 'fair', just winning sales.
If you don't like your politicians, you are at least able to cast a vote. We (that's the rest-of-the-world, btw) receive their largesse and incompetence, currently exemplified by your sub-prime crisis, without any say. Back on topic, we (that is Australia) despite always having acted as a US ally, sometimes against our own best interests, aren't to be considered for some US whizzy jet thing as we can't be trusted. We can be trusted to wait while the Boeing airframe supported Wedgetail project continues to delay and run over cost.
And that's the deal that the rest of us have delt with for years. Welcome to the team.
Oh, c'mon, just like all the other decisions good and bad. Shall we moan about the 1929 stockmarket crash?
Aerospace isn't easy. They play hardball. It's not fair. No-one else is going to shed a tear for Boeing missing out. (Yes it's bad, I'm sure it's not 'fair', but I'm still waiting for someone top post one - just one - whiter than white defens/ce deal.)
(BTW: I don't know, and yes, I don't really care, sorry, but the issue of relative employment stats and EADS / Boeing ownership / US content doesn't seem to be something you are addressing...)
And finally... Wars are lost, not won, and whatever one might think about the factors, Vietnam was lost on the American home front. The internecine fighting in the US over this, however unjustified a decision, cost time, money, and resources that should be better deployed. No US ally (such as Australia, Britain, or NATO) takes pleasure in that, but your enemies certainly will.
Regards, all in friendship,
You are right I don't give a monkey's about current aerospace. I treasure my massive ignorance, and the broken record is, clearly, just one of the unpalatable facts, or invariable factors, IMHO. (It reads just the same as to research I'm doing into certain US interwar airline and airmail scandals, and Australian-UK purchasing rorts.) It only interests me as future history, and, as here demonstration of how things stay the same.
I dunno where you got the idea my horizons are limited to Australia? I've written far more on US and UK aviation history than Australian, and, FYI, been published by French, Dutch, Belgian, Australian, American, Canadian and British aviation publications as well as running a multi-national publisher.
Should overseas aerospace history be of interest... the history of Australia's CAC, DAP, Hawker de Havilland etc, is full of similar examples to the case discussed here... but Australia's aerospace industry committed suicide, amply assisted by US flooding of the lightplane market etc. No tears there, just incompetents assisted to fail by foreign interests - sound familiar? Canada managed to plough a different furrow. Even I know it was neither easy, or 'fair' for our Canuckian cousins. Their southern neighbour, like the British Empire Preference Scheme wasn't interested in 'fair', just winning sales.
If you don't like your politicians, you are at least able to cast a vote. We (that's the rest-of-the-world, btw) receive their largesse and incompetence, currently exemplified by your sub-prime crisis, without any say. Back on topic, we (that is Australia) despite always having acted as a US ally, sometimes against our own best interests, aren't to be considered for some US whizzy jet thing as we can't be trusted. We can be trusted to wait while the Boeing airframe supported Wedgetail project continues to delay and run over cost.
The Inspector wrote:As I've stated before, the one thing I very much resent is my hard earned dollars are being taken as taxes to send my dollars overseas to purchase an aircraft that could be a bargaining chip down the road, and when we need spares or engineering and EADS gives the Pentagon the equivalant of John Cleeses rant from the castle in "Holy Grail'.
And that's the deal that the rest of us have delt with for years. Welcome to the team.
The Inspector wrote:Whatever the outcome, my children and grandchildren will have to suffer the fruits of this decision
Oh, c'mon, just like all the other decisions good and bad. Shall we moan about the 1929 stockmarket crash?
Aerospace isn't easy. They play hardball. It's not fair. No-one else is going to shed a tear for Boeing missing out. (Yes it's bad, I'm sure it's not 'fair', but I'm still waiting for someone top post one - just one - whiter than white defens/ce deal.)
(BTW: I don't know, and yes, I don't really care, sorry, but the issue of relative employment stats and EADS / Boeing ownership / US content doesn't seem to be something you are addressing...)
And finally... Wars are lost, not won, and whatever one might think about the factors, Vietnam was lost on the American home front. The internecine fighting in the US over this, however unjustified a decision, cost time, money, and resources that should be better deployed. No US ally (such as Australia, Britain, or NATO) takes pleasure in that, but your enemies certainly will.
Regards, all in friendship,
Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:59 pm
I am a firm believer that the point in all this has been missed. The Tax payer is going get screwed!
We have over 140 low time DC-10's sitting in the Mojave. The cost of a refitting to KC-10 standards would be BILLIONS less then this dog and pony show between EADS and Boeing. A 10 is a good product. It is supported in the supply system, already has training systems established for both aircrew and maintenance. Gee, we could save the public some money and support the mission. That would be different! Don't say it can't be done, the Dutch just did it with a 10 they got from Mojave.
The USAF/A5 community F'd this up from the get go with Darlene Drunyon. Queen Ass hat herself. If the war fighters think they'll have a new tanker, it won't happen anytime soon. The CSAR community is still waiting for the CSAR-X fight to finish. The only winners are the enemy and the lawyers hashing this out. (Lawyers, Enemy= Same thing). We the taxpayers, and my Brothers and Sisters out in the fight, are the biggest losers.
Hey! Have of you guys and gals looked at what it is going to take to support the EADS product
Do you think it will fit into the current hangers we have at any Active, Guard or Reserve tanker base Guess what? it won't. You are going to see another request for more millions to just be able to mod the current hangers to fit this things into. Yes, this is the second screw job: it is the MILCON. 
Man, after serving 22 years, from uniforms to procurement, we have had some real winners running the show. I would say that when McPeak started the train rolling on institutionalized stupidity, Air Force Leadership (General Fogleman excepted) has gone all out to screw the USAF into mediocrity. God, I really wish Curtis LeMay would return from the grave and kick some sense into these Ass hats.
We have over 140 low time DC-10's sitting in the Mojave. The cost of a refitting to KC-10 standards would be BILLIONS less then this dog and pony show between EADS and Boeing. A 10 is a good product. It is supported in the supply system, already has training systems established for both aircrew and maintenance. Gee, we could save the public some money and support the mission. That would be different! Don't say it can't be done, the Dutch just did it with a 10 they got from Mojave.
The USAF/A5 community F'd this up from the get go with Darlene Drunyon. Queen Ass hat herself. If the war fighters think they'll have a new tanker, it won't happen anytime soon. The CSAR community is still waiting for the CSAR-X fight to finish. The only winners are the enemy and the lawyers hashing this out. (Lawyers, Enemy= Same thing). We the taxpayers, and my Brothers and Sisters out in the fight, are the biggest losers.
Hey! Have of you guys and gals looked at what it is going to take to support the EADS product
Do you think it will fit into the current hangers we have at any Active, Guard or Reserve tanker base Guess what? it won't. You are going to see another request for more millions to just be able to mod the current hangers to fit this things into. Yes, this is the second screw job: it is the MILCON.
Man, after serving 22 years, from uniforms to procurement, we have had some real winners running the show. I would say that when McPeak started the train rolling on institutionalized stupidity, Air Force Leadership (General Fogleman excepted) has gone all out to screw the USAF into mediocrity. God, I really wish Curtis LeMay would return from the grave and kick some sense into these Ass hats.
Mon Apr 14, 2008 3:19 pm
No, the point isn't getting missed. We don't need more KC-10s. We need a KC-135 replacement. The KC-10 is too big for many airports and it's fuel capability compared to its size and weight are not ideal. It is a true mutli-role aircraft, okay at everything, good at nothing. As such, the USAF issued an RFP for a KC-135 replacement, not a KC-10 replacement. What we have (at least for now) is a replacement for neither. It's bigger than the KC-10 and doesn't fill the role of the KC-135.
Wed May 07, 2008 10:02 am
The Tanker Decision.
Oversized aircraft, oversized costs.
It doesn’t add up.
Chart Caption: As compared to the KC-767. Analysis based on publicly available and Boeing data.
The U.S. Air Force KC-X tanker competition set out to replace aging, medium-sized KC-135 tankers. The requirements in the Request for Proposal (RFP) were, first and foremost, aimed at providing a refueling offload capability comparable to that of the KC-135, while also incorporating features to improve operational flexibility. The goal was not to procure the largest tanker, but instead, to identify the right-sized tanker to give the warfighter the most capable aircraft for the air-refueling mission with the lowest total costs. But the right-sized aircraft was not selected. The Northrop Grumman/European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company KC-30 was chosen over the Boeing KC-767, even though it’s an oversized, less capable aircraft costing billions more to operate. It doesn’t add up.
Let’s look at the facts.
What Size Tanker is the Optimal-Sized Tanker? The Air Force Statement of Objectives for the KC-X reiterated that its primary mission is refueling aircraft. Enhanced mission capabilities including airlift and survivability were also requested. However, the Air Force stated publicly it did not want to buy a cargo airplane that was also a tanker or a passenger airplane that was also a tanker. It wanted an aircraft ideally suited to the air refueling mission. Furthermore, the RFP stated that no additional credit would be given for exceeding key performance requirements. Why not exceed the requirements? Because the larger you make a tanker, the more costly and less efficient it becomes. It burns more fuel, it’s more difficult to deploy, it costs more to house, operate and maintain. Still, the KC-30 was selected despite being more than twice the size of the KC-135 and more costly and less capable than the KC-767. It doesn’t add up.
Offload Capacity or Wasted Capacity? The Air Force KC-X fuel offload requirement at 1,000 nautical miles was 94,000 pounds, a requirement that the KC-767 exceeded by 20%. However, the fuel capacity of the KC-30 exceeds this requirement by 50%. How useful is the additional capacity? Historical data as well as the operational scenarios in the KC-X competition predicted average offloads per mission for both aircraft between 60,000-70,000 pounds. In other words, nearly two-thirds of the capacity of the KC-30 does not serve the air refueling mission--and brings with it enormous excess weight and therefore significantly higher operating costs. It doesn’t add up.
Bigger or Better? The Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-30 can carry more passengers and more pallets of cargo than the Boeing KC-767. Isn’t that a plus? Actually, it’s a very big negative. Consider first that in 2006, the Air Force moved less than 1% of their cargo and passengers with tankers. In fact, the Air Force RFP set no cargo or passenger threshold requirements for the KC-X tanker. Secondly, the KC-767 carries twice as many passengers and more than three times as many cargo pallets as the KC-135 tanker it would replace, more than enough capacity to fulfill any real-world tanker airlift mission. And because it has a true cargo floor, the KC-767 can carry approximately the same cargo weight as the much larger KC-30. The KC-767 provides all this capability without the additional $49 billion in total life cycle costs required by the fleet of larger, less efficient KC-30s. It doesn’t add up.
The facts are clear. In not selecting the more capable, optimal-sized KC-767, the warfighter and taxpayer get an oversized aircraft with oversized costs. This is not new information. In 2002, when first comparing the KC-30 platform (then called the KC-330) to the KC-767, an Air Force report concluded, "…the size difference of the EADS-proposed KC-330 results in an 81% larger ground footprint compared to the KC-135E it would replace, whereas the Boeing 767 is only 29% larger. The KC-330 increase in size does not bring with it a commensurate increase in available air-refueling offload. Finally, the EADS aircraft would demand a greater infrastructure investment and dramatically limits the aircraft’s ability to operate effectively in worldwide deployment." It’s a decision that doesn’t add up. And one that should not stand.
Wed May 07, 2008 12:06 pm
CAPFlyer wrote:No, the point isn't getting missed. We don't need more KC-10s. We need a KC-135 replacement. The KC-10 is too big for many airports and it's fuel capability compared to its size and weight are not ideal. It is a true mutli-role aircraft, okay at everything, good at nothing. As such, the USAF issued an RFP for a KC-135 replacement, not a KC-10 replacement. What we have (at least for now) is a replacement for neither. It's bigger than the KC-10 and doesn't fill the role of the KC-135.
The KC-10 is a fine aircraft- I've been on the airframe over 4 years now, and find we have a Mission Capable Rate in the high 90's often 100%. It is not "too big for many airports" being a typical size for a commercial aircraft, can land at pretty much any commercial or military airport. Fuel capacity is on the order of twice the KC-135s, can refuel everything in the inventory- AF and Navy(although not helicopters, due to the great difference in flying speeds) and stil carry cargo and 25-75 passengers, depending on configuration...
As to being jack of all trades, master of none, it does the missions it is required to. Which is more than I can say for most multipurpose items. It is excellent as an aerial refueler- its main purpose. Much more comfortable for the boomer and plenty of room back there- and the view is superb- the largest single piece of glass flying is the KC-10A boomer's window!
I agree with the concept of refitting the desert DC-10s. Keep 'Em Flying! Stop wasting money- especially to a foreign company- and just reuse what we already have. The infrastructure is already in place to support them, and there are people with years of experience on them. And we don't have to worry about being throttled by a foreign government.
And to reply to a different comment, the newest C-135/KC-135/EC-135's are all over 43 years old- Production stopped in 1965.
Robbie
CREW CHIEF KC10A