Boeing Formally Protests US Air Force Tanker Contract Award

On Mar 12, 5:56*pm, "Bob Gardner" wrote:
Don't you have that backward? Boeing's 767 tanker is flying in Italy (and
another country. Japan?) today and has been for a couple of years. EADS has
never built a tanker.


Japan got their first tanker just last month.

On Mar 12, 5:56 pm, "Bob Gardner" wrote:
Don't you have that backward? Boeing's 767 tanker is flying in Italy (and
another country. Japan?) today and has been for a couple of years. EADS has
never built a tanker.

Bob Gardner

I believe that the design Boeing offered to the USAF was not the same
as the one currently being built for Italy and Japan- it's based on
the 767-200LRF airframe rather than the 767-200ER. And while the
airframes themselves have been flying since 2005, they only started
testing the refueling systems last year and none have actually entered
service yet. First deliveries are supposed to be in the first quarter
of 2008. It's still been around longer than the A330-MRTT variant,
but the disparity isn't as large as it first appears.

Boeing still has a great deal more experience building tankers, of
course, but I'd hesitate to call either of these designs significantly
more mature than the other.

-JTD

Now wouldn't you think.. that after Boeing got in trouble.. ok.. not Boeing
but a high up muckymuck in the Pentagon that went to work for Boeing.. got
in trouble over the KC-X program.. that Northrop/EADS would have a complaint
of Boeing got the contract?

Wait.. Northrop is an AMERICAN company.. so what's the big whup all about..
B

"Kingfish" wrote in message
...
On Mar 12, 10:12 am, AJ wrote:

Boeing Formally Protests US Air Force Tanker Contract Award
Says KC-X RFP Differs From Criteria Cited In Going with KC-45A


snip long story on Boeing's whining...

This shouldn't surprise anyone familiary with gov't contracts. With
the huge $$ at stake in the KC-X program I expected the loser
(whomever that would be) to appeal. Apparently that's the automatic
response to losing a big contract now. Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin/
Agusta Westland did the same when the USAF chose Boeing's HH-47 for
the CSAR-X program.

Ron Lee wrote:

Bob Gardner wrote:

EADS has never built a tanker.

Really ?

You seem to be confused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT

A330 MRTT / KC-30B
Type Aerial refuelling and transport
Manufacturer EADS (Airbus)
Maiden flight 15 June 2007


So they have eight months of tanker experience (that may be generous)
versus how many DECADES for Boeing?

What does KC135 experience have to do with it ? In any event, EADS is
supplying the AIRFRAMES, and jolly fine airframes they are too. Northrop
Grumman is doing the tanker conversion stuff for this contract. Do you
have a problem with Northrop Grumman ?

Airbus have shown a consistent ability to deliver the goods over the
years too. They don't outsell Boeing by accident.

Graham

On Mar 13, 12:18*am, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:

I believe that the design Boeing offered to the USAF was not the same
as the one currently being built for Italy and Japan- it's based on
the 767-200LRF airframe rather than the 767-200ER. *And while the
airframes themselves have been flying since 2005, they only started
testing the refueling systems last year and none have actually entered
service yet. *First deliveries are supposed to be in the first quarter
of 2008. *It's still been around longer than the A330-MRTT variant,
but the disparity isn't as large as it first appears.

Boeing still has a great deal more experience building tankers, of
course, but I'd hesitate to call either of these designs significantly
more mature than the other.


I recall Boeing's Advanced Tanker was some kind of hybrid, like you
said it's based on the 767-200LRF but it has a different wing. (can't
find a source for this) The 767 has been around longer than the A330
for sure, but I don't think that lessens the risk in developing a
refueler based on that plane. Either airplane would be a huge
improvement over the creaky KC-135 (now I'm reading they may not be in
as bad a shape as was previously believed)

Eeyore wrote in
:



Ron Lee wrote:

Bob Gardner wrote:

EADS has never built a tanker.

Really ?

You seem to be confused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT

A330 MRTT / KC-30B
Type Aerial refuelling and transport
Manufacturer EADS (Airbus)
Maiden flight 15 June 2007


So they have eight months of tanker experience (that may be generous)
versus how many DECADES for Boeing?

What does KC135 experience have to do with it ?

What have you got to do with it , planespotter?



Bertie

On Mar 13, 9:46 am, Kingfish wrote:
On Mar 13, 12:18 am, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:



I believe that the design Boeing offered to the USAF was not the same
as the one currently being built for Italy and Japan- it's based on
the 767-200LRF airframe rather than the 767-200ER. And while the
airframes themselves have been flying since 2005, they only started
testing the refueling systems last year and none have actually entered
service yet. First deliveries are supposed to be in the first quarter
of 2008. It's still been around longer than the A330-MRTT variant,
but the disparity isn't as large as it first appears.

Boeing still has a great deal more experience building tankers, of
course, but I'd hesitate to call either of these designs significantly
more mature than the other.

I recall Boeing's Advanced Tanker was some kind of hybrid, like you
said it's based on the 767-200LRF but it has a different wing. (can't
find a source for this) The 767 has been around longer than the A330
for sure, but I don't think that lessens the risk in developing a
refueler based on that plane. Either airplane would be a huge
improvement over the creaky KC-135 (now I'm reading they may not be in
as bad a shape as was previously believed)

Per Aviation Leak at: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...aw031008p2.xml

The airframe that was actually being offered, the -200LRF, appears to
still be in development. According to the article, it had the
airframe of a 767-200, wings from the -300F freighter, and cockpit and
empennage from the -400ER model. The 767 is a proven airframe, but
I'm not sure that putting together all those parts and trying to make
them work together is a low-risk strategy. In contrast, I believe
that the KC-767s for Italy and Japan are straight up conversions of
the -200ER airframe, similar to Airbus' proposal for their KC-X
competitor.

With that in mind, meseems that it's a bit of a stretch to call the
KC-767 that's now getting ready to enter service and Boeing's KC-X
proposal the same airplane. They're both tankers based on the 767,
but their construction seems radically different.

-JTD

Jeff Dougherty wrote in
:

On Mar 13, 9:46 am, Kingfish wrote:
On Mar 13, 12:18 am, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:



I believe that the design Boeing offered to the USAF was not the
same as the one currently being built for Italy and Japan- it's
based on the 767-200LRF airframe rather than the 767-200ER. And
while the airframes themselves have been flying since 2005, they
only started testing the refueling systems last year and none have
actually entered service yet. First deliveries are supposed to be
in the first quarter of 2008. It's still been around longer than
the A330-MRTT variant, but the disparity isn't as large as it first
appears.

Boeing still has a great deal more experience building tankers, of
course, but I'd hesitate to call either of these designs
significantly more mature than the other.

I recall Boeing's Advanced Tanker was some kind of hybrid, like you
said it's based on the 767-200LRF but it has a different wing. (can't
find a source for this) The 767 has been around longer than the A330
for sure, but I don't think that lessens the risk in developing a
refueler based on that plane. Either airplane would be a huge
improvement over the creaky KC-135 (now I'm reading they may not be
in as bad a shape as was previously believed)

Per Aviation Leak at:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...y_generic.jsp?
channel=awst&i
d=news/aw031008p2.xml

The airframe that was actually being offered, the -200LRF, appears to
still be in development. According to the article, it had the
airframe of a 767-200, wings from the -300F freighter, and cockpit and
empennage from the -400ER model. The 767 is a proven airframe, but
I'm not sure that putting together all those parts and trying to make
them work together is a low-risk strategy.

It's been done for years by all sorts of manufacturers, including
Boeing.



Bertie

On Mar 13, 1:14*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Jeff Dougherty wrote :







On Mar 13, 9:46 am, Kingfish wrote:
On Mar 13, 12:18 am, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:

I believe that the design Boeing offered to the USAF was not the
same as the one currently being built for Italy and Japan- it's
based on the 767-200LRF airframe rather than the 767-200ER. *And
while the airframes themselves have been flying since 2005, they
only started testing the refueling systems last year and none have
actually entered service yet. *First deliveries are supposed to be
in the first quarter of 2008. *It's still been around longer than
the A330-MRTT variant, but the disparity isn't as large as it first
appears.

Boeing still has a great deal more experience building tankers, of
course, but I'd hesitate to call either of these designs
significantly more mature than the other.

I recall Boeing's Advanced Tanker was some kind of hybrid, like you
said it's based on the 767-200LRF but it has a different wing. (can't
find a source for this) The 767 has been around longer than the A330
for sure, but I don't think that lessens the risk in developing a
refueler based on that plane. Either airplane would be a huge
improvement over the creaky KC-135 (now I'm reading they may not be
in as bad a shape as was previously believed)

Per Aviation Leak at:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...y_generic.jsp?
channel=awst&i
d=news/aw031008p2.xml

The airframe that was actually being offered, the -200LRF, appears to
still be in development. *According to the article, it had the
airframe of a 767-200, wings from the -300F freighter, and cockpit and
empennage from the -400ER model. *The 767 is a proven airframe, but
I'm not sure that putting together all those parts and trying to make
them work together is a low-risk strategy.

It's been done for years by all sorts of manufacturers, including
Boeing.

Fair enough. The AvLeak article made it sound like a relatively high-
risk approach that turned off the Air Force, but the key word there
may be "relatively". Thanks for the clarification- I'm not even
remotely familiar with airliner manufacture and I guess it showed.

It'll be interesting to see how this all turns out. At the risk of
pontificating (again) about something I don't really understand, it
seems to me that the real take-home lesson is that we can look forward
to pretty much every major defense contract award being protested
unless and until the rules are changed. There's pretty much no
downside to losing the protest, and it gives you the potential to
swing the contract and all the associated millions. I wonder how long
it will be before procurement officers start building time into their
project schedules to deal with "routine" protests? :-)

-JTD

Jeff Dougherty wrote in
:

On Mar 13, 1:14*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Jeff Dougherty wrote
innews:1c300e63-969f-4e
:







On Mar 13, 9:46 am, Kingfish wrote:
On Mar 13, 12:18 am, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:

I believe that the design Boeing offered to the USAF was not the
same as the one currently being built for Italy and Japan- it's
based on the 767-200LRF airframe rather than the 767-200ER. *And
while the airframes themselves have been flying since 2005, they
only started testing the refueling systems last year and none
have actually entered service yet. *First deliveries are
supposed to be in the first quarter of 2008. *It's still been
around longer than the A330-MRTT variant, but the disparity
isn't as large as it first appears.

Boeing still has a great deal more experience building tankers,
of course, but I'd hesitate to call either of these designs
significantly more mature than the other.

I recall Boeing's Advanced Tanker was some kind of hybrid, like
you said it's based on the 767-200LRF but it has a different wing.
(can't find a source for this) The 767 has been around longer than
the A330 for sure, but I don't think that lessens the risk in
developing a refueler based on that plane. Either airplane would
be a huge improvement over the creaky KC-135 (now I'm reading they
may not be in as bad a shape as was previously believed)

Per Aviation Leak at:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...y_generic.jsp?
channel=awst&i
d=news/aw031008p2.xml

The airframe that was actually being offered, the -200LRF, appears
to still be in development. *According to the article, it had the
airframe of a 767-200, wings from the -300F freighter, and cockpit
and empennage from the -400ER model. *The 767 is a proven airframe,
but I'm not sure that putting together all those parts and trying
to make them work together is a low-risk strategy.

It's been done for years by all sorts of manufacturers, including
Boeing.

Fair enough. The AvLeak article made it sound like a relatively high-
risk approach that turned off the Air Force, but the key word there
may be "relatively". Thanks for the clarification- I'm not even
remotely familiar with airliner manufacture and I guess it showed.


Well, they're just like any other airplane for the most part. Douglas
made up 'new' DC-8s by mixing wings fuselages and engines. Boeing did
roughly the same. all of the skinny ones from the 707 onwards have the
same fuselage. The 757 was initially suppose to have th esmae nose as
the 707, 727 etc but they wanted the glass out of the 767 in it so they
put them in and built the nose up around it. The new 737 has the 757
wing. Avweb could be right, of course. I can't see a big deal in doing
as they suggest, though. Boeing generally seem to know what they are
doing.

It'll be interesting to see how this all turns out. At the risk of
pontificating (again) about something I don't really understand, it
seems to me that the real take-home lesson is that we can look forward
to pretty much every major defense contract award being protested
unless and until the rules are changed. There's pretty much no
downside to losing the protest, and it gives you the potential to
swing the contract and all the associated millions. I wonder how long
it will be before procurement officers start building time into their
project schedules to deal with "routine" protests? :-)


Well, I would assume the military looked at the mission fist, a fact
that's often lost in the shouting and roaring that goes on in a case
like this. Presumably the 'Bus had some advantages in an actual
operational situation. No point buying a machine that's going to let you
down. I don't know that htis had anything to do with anything for sure,
but they don't buy toys like this without looking into these sorts of
things.


Bertie