Is your knowledge of USAF tanker operations.
As was mentioned previously, the tanker replacement competition was botched from the get-go, and all along the way. The acquisition process amounted to a politically motivated exercise in “lather, rinse and repeat until the answer comes up Boeing.”
Requirements, technical and support issues took a back seat.
Almost universally? Really? Where the hell do you get that from? Seriously, where?
Try reading the GAO summary. It wouldn’t have taken any longer than typing that post. Here, I’ll even point you to the money shots:
If you’re sincerely looking for circumstantial evidence of fraud or corruption, that is as damning an indictment as you’ll find right there, don’tcha think? But such possibilities are the reason for the protest law’s existence.
Of course, if you’d rather just join mhendo in loose, fact-irrelevant handwaving accusations of corruption, go right ahead. You’re doing fine.
Where in all that bluster is any mention of the validated USAF operational requirements study that led to a smaller aircraft being preferable? Does that mean anything to you?
As already explained and ignored, yes, EADS did not have an aircraft as appropriately sized to USAF’s requirements as Boeing. You decline to explain how that is in any way unfair, though.
Not one of USAF’s better moments, that, but that proposal was a bullshit sandwich *without *the fries. You can’t really blame USAF for not wanting to waste their time with it.
You really do need to make more of an effort to inform yourself
Nadir, kindly show us you know the difference between KC-X and KC-Y.
There were no requirements in the original proposal favoring a smaller aircraft, and no particular reason why this is operationally preferred for the mission role of this aircraft, which will operate from fields that also support the C-17 and C-130. If you’ve actually reviewed the proposals [which I have] it is notable to see how the requirements changed from the original specifications, which were more general and which the A330-based vehicle was both a lower projected acquisition and maintenance cost and more capable, to the later specifications that very clearly favored the KC-767 to no rationale end.
This is a rather amusing statement given the source. You’ve already demonstrated a lack of comprehension about the roles of the various tanker aircraft in operation and under proposal, and clearly have not actually read any part of the proposals or understand how the specifications laid out in the RFPs changed from phase to phase in order to highlight the KC-767 as the only vehicle that met requirements regardless of actually desired capability. When many Boeing employes who worked the program actually admit that the specs were retailored specifically to favor the KC-767 proposal, it really isn’t much of a stretch to call it a violation of the spirit of fair competition even if it meets the explicit letter of the law with regard to acquisition regulations.
Stranger
Oh dear. That’s where forward basing, and the number of planes that can be parked on a given ramp at the same time, come into it. So do operating costs.
And not the GAO protest statement. Remarkable. I doubt you’d have done it yet if I only provided you the damn link, instead of the key quotes.
Not so remarkable when you correlate them with the timeline of the program’s politicization by the competition ideologues (led by McCain, who to his credit forced open the corruption of the original lease deal). That resulted in the need to adjust the specs to create an artificially-level competition that Airbus, the only other possible supplier, could find attractive. The warfighter’s operational needs were not a factor in those changes.
Okay, you too can help by showing a basic understanding of the difference between KC-X and KC-Y. :rollyes:
I’ve mentioned several times how the bid specs resulted from a validated study of operational requirements. If you’d rather irresponsibly and nebulously charge corruption than consider that fact, don’t expect to be taken seriously. This is not the forum for manufactured RO, ya know.
Oh, okay, just for yucks: Cite? In context, of course?
Apparently you live in Mobile and take Sen. Shelby’s rantings at face value. That’s the only way to grasp your POV, really.
Yes, I read the protest statement, which is actually included as an attachment to the revised RFP. However you care to dress it up, Northrop Grumman won the original proposal based upon technical merit, only to have the entire specification for the program revised due to the GAO protest such that the the KC-45 was fundamentally excluded. It is almost universally accepted within the aerospace industry that the competition was grossly unfair; even by Boeing advocates admit that the revised RFP was strongly and deliberately skewed in favor of the KC-767, regardless of merit. This is hardly the first incidence of this, even in recent years–the selection of prime contractor for NASA’s Constellation program was given to the company which had previously spent nearly US$1B on a spaceplane program without developing even a single flight test scale article–but the degree to which the RFP was skewed was brazen even by military acquisition standards.
Glad to help: the KC-X is intended to supplement the aging KC-135 fleet, and in particular the older A variants, which is the mainstay tanker for both long range tactical and strategic aircraft. The KC-X was intended to begin deployment in 2012 and be up to full acquisition of 179 flying units in the 2020 timeframe, although those dates are clearly out the window now. The KC-Y is a followup acquisition for another tanker aircraft (which could just be modernized versions of the aircraft selected for the KC-X proposal, a redesigned version of the KC-X, or a completely new airframe), and is intended to replace the rest of the KC-135A sand KC-10s, as well as some KC-135Rs in inventory as they reach their airframe life limits. The current procurement plan, such as it is, calls for procurement of ~15 KC-Ys a year from 2024-36, with more potential acquisition through ~2050. The KC-Z acquisition is intended to be roughly concurrent with the KC-Y and will provide an eventual replacement for the rest of the KC-135R fleet, providing a somewhat smaller aircraft with less range.
The KC-130 is considered the standard “tactical” refueling aircraft by the USMC, and the Navy has used the S-3B Viking and KA-6D Intruder tanker variant for mission or recovery tanking, though it has currently moved to Aerial Fueling System-equipped “buddy tanker” variants of the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet to simplify operations and maintenance. The USAF doesn’t maintain any dedicated “tactical tanker” aircraft, though it does use the KC-135A/R for refueling both tactical fighters, tactical bombers, close air support aircraft, surveillance aircraft, and strategic bombers like the B-2 Spirit.
Did that give you the basic understanding of the intended roles of the KC-X, -Y, and -Z acquisitions, as well as a little bit of background on the roles of the various tanker aircraft currently in operation by the United States military services? I’d be happy to provide you more detail if you like, or reference you to the appropriate source.
And apparently the only way to grasp your point of view is to bend over and shove your head up your ass while screaming “La la la la la, I can’t hear you!” You seem to continue to insist that everyone is supremely ignorant other than yourself regardless of what knowledge or background they may have, even though you have demonstrated your own ignorance about the roles of existing and proposed tanker aircraft. If this is the level of discussion that you are capable of or interested in, count me out.
Stranger
Did you read the part about USAF “screwing up” so much they picked the wrong winner? 
I already asked you where the hell you get that from. Are you going to support that statement or just continue to bluster? :dubious:
Cite already requested. Still not provided.
Says the guy who hasn’t even read the major document related to his charges, and can’t provide even the simplest cite to support his handwaving. That’s a common occurrence on this board, though.
Not everyone, only a couple of you.
We both know that no factual support for your loose and irresponsible charges of corruption is forthcoming, so, have a nice day. 
This is MPSIMS, not the Pit. Dial it back a bit, please.
Thanks,
twickster, MPSIMS mod
So it is perfectly fine for ElvisL1ves to specifically single me out as being ignorant, but not for me to respond in kind?
Fuck you.
Stranger
Boeing harbors an ongoing aversion to acceptable behavior in the DoD acquisition and contracting field. They have repeatedly engaged in criminal behavior. They were barred from launch competition and EELV contracts for three years after stealing Lockheed documents. That and the tanker fiasco are the two big ones we know about.
The only thing I find particularly remarkable about Boeing considering their inability to field an airframe in a fair and timely manner, is the government’s apparent indifference to their corporate philosophy devoid of integrity.
They will most certainly demonstrate these attributes again during execution of the tanker contract(s). It only remains to be seen how painful and deadly it becomes for our airmen.
I’m excited! This means my sister may be moving here (she’s an aircraft electronics technician) from Misery (MO :D).
From what I hear from a FOAF(with a security clearance), Boeing has also completely fucked up repeatedly in the spy satellite realm world, but has managed to keep a lot of that out of public view because the work is highly classified. They continue to get contracts in that world because there aren’t many other players in the field who can do the work either.
So some of you think Airbus is clean and Boeing is dirty, and the needs of the warfighter and the taxpayer don’t enter into it? It’s really that simple?
OK then, in keeping with the simple, invective-based approach, here’sFrank Gaffney of the Moonie Times:
That rant doesn’t deserve much attention either, but this thread has become quite unbalanced the other way.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but i have never even suggested that Airbus is necessarily clean, nor have i suggested that the needs of the warfighter and the taxpayer are irrelevant. In fact, i made very clear that i recognized that such needs, and the limited number of possible contractors, meant that punishing Boeing as they deserved was impractical.
But thanks for playing anyway.