Main Menu

KC-X winner announced!

Started by afgeo4, March 01, 2008, 04:53:03 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

NIN

Quote from: Hoser on March 04, 2008, 07:32:33 PM
The same thing happened when the Coast Guard purchased the HH-65 from Aerospatiale in the early 80s. Bell hopped up and down because they French won the bid. Aerospatiale met the Buy American Act by installing American made avionics and American made powerplants which made the helicopter 51% American made, therefore Bell had no gripe. I suspect that's what Airbus will do also. Then it will be 51% American made and legal under the Buy American Act.

Yeah, the Allied-Signal powerplants they wedged in there were significantly underpowered versus the Turbomecas they replaced.  As a friend of mine, a CH-47 driver turned HH-65 victim pilot, reported: "The second engine is just there to ensure we make it to our own crash scene.."  According to him, with a full bag of gas, a co-pilot, a SAR tech and SAR gear, the words "Effective Transitional Lift" and "rolling takeoff" were in their SOP.  And forget hovering until you burned off enough gas.   ???

Two years ago, the Coast Guard undertook the process to upgrade the powerplants in the HH-65 with.. (insert drumroll here, please!) Turbomeca Arriel 2C2s (hint: the original non-American  powerplant for the SA-365 Dauphin was the Turbomeca Arriel 1C, later upgraded to the 1C2 and thence the 2C2 )

Where is that "I coulda had a V-8!" head smacking similey when you need him?

Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

NIN

My AEO, a retired O-6 F-15 driver, suggested perhaps that the Airbus/EADS selection was the AF kicking Congress in the teeth for forcing them to recompete the contract and that since this decision would not play well in home districts with lost jobs, they could answer to their constituents....

I need to ask him about that, cuz I swear he was suggesting that the AF did that intentionally to make Congress look stupid, and I don't remember over what, but I think it was the whole KC-767 thing...



Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

mikeylikey

^ And to get even Congress appropriates 20 percent less next year to big blue.  Officers are Rif'ed, Civilians are cut, bases fall apart, and Oversight committees press for AF leaders to resign early for "stuff".   :'(
What's up monkeys?

A.Member

#23
Quote from: DNall on March 04, 2008, 07:07:48 PM
Early word from inside the bid process is NG/EADS beat Boeing on every item of the bid, including price, while providing a more capable bird...

... It's too bad we have to go with a foreign manufacturer, but Boeing doesn't deserve a free ride just cause they're based in the US.
This is exactly right.  The AF has actually recieved a fair amount of praise for it's acquistion process for this program.  Mission capability, proposal risk, and past performance were given greater weight than cost.  Isn't that the way it should be?  In addition, the AF agreed not to go with a split winner approach that potentially would've led to compromises in the final product.  Competition is good. 

The simple fact is that the A330 platform that was proposed seems to be the better platform in this situation.  Now, the key is to get a new tanker into service ASAP because NKAWTG...nobody!  The 135's are 45+ years old on average and make up the vast majority of our tanker fleet.  Hopefully any protests are kept to a minimum because they only serve to delay the delivery of a critically needed solution...and that benefits no one. 
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Hoser

No it's Aerospatiale, Aeropostale is some clothing brand. google it

bosshawk

I watched the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on this subject yesterday and came away with some interesting information.  The two House members who had the most to say and the most criticism were, strangely enough, from Washington and Kansas(two big Boeing states).  Other members of the subcommittee had very little to say in the way of criticism.

The proposed buy is for 179 aircraft.  The AF testified that their planned build is for 15 per year: do the math and see that the contract will run for over 10 years.  It is designed to replace only the KC-135E models, not the R or the KC-10.  This simply means that some of the E models will be over 60 years old when they are replaced.

Sue Payton, the AF Acquisition Executive, who was in charge of this source selection, pointed out that the law governing these sorts of things, equates about 15 NATO nations(including France) to US manufacturers.  That simply means that the Buy American Act says that stuff made in France is considered to be as legal as stuff built in America.  Perhaps the law needs to be changed: but it is too late for this procurement.  In another life, I knew Sue and she is one first class lady.
Paul M. Reed
Col, USA(ret)
Former CAP Lt Col
Wilson #2777

afgeo4

Quote from: bosshawk on March 06, 2008, 11:06:44 PM
I watched the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on this subject yesterday and came away with some interesting information.  The two House members who had the most to say and the most criticism were, strangely enough, from Washington and Kansas(two big Boeing states).  Other members of the subcommittee had very little to say in the way of criticism.

The proposed buy is for 179 aircraft.  The AF testified that their planned build is for 15 per year: do the math and see that the contract will run for over 10 years.  It is designed to replace only the KC-135E models, not the R or the KC-10.  This simply means that some of the E models will be over 60 years old when they are replaced.

Sue Payton, the AF Acquisition Executive, who was in charge of this source selection, pointed out that the law governing these sorts of things, equates about 15 NATO nations(including France) to US manufacturers.  That simply means that the Buy American Act says that stuff made in France is considered to be as legal as stuff built in America.  Perhaps the law needs to be changed: but it is too late for this procurement.  In another life, I knew Sue and she is one first class lady.
Not a completely accurate assessment there. The INITIAL contract is for 179 aircraft at 15 per year to replace all KC-135E. The remainder of E models will be reengined into R models. The R models will be replaced by follow-on contracts for the same KC-45 and that will take up to 30 years. KC-10 is a completely different aircraft with different mission and will not be replaced by the KC-45.

Here's my question... with other Boeing 707 based aircraft getting very old as well (Sentry, JSTARS, and Rivet Joint), will USAF contract the same EADS A-330 to replace them or will they throw a bone to Boeing and accept B767s?

The mission requirements for those aircraft are quite different from the tanker and Boeing does already sell 767 based AWACS aircraft.
GEORGE LURYE

MajFitzpatrick

As long as they can get tankers in the air soon. I waited in Maron Spain for 13 days before getting tanker support. And we were priority because we were returning from desert duty.
With Ops Tempo like it is, we just need more Tankers. The thought of technological multiplier is great, but lets do simple math. 1 thing can't be in two places at 1 time. And when you have so few numbers, when one goes down because of maintenance/accident/combat, you have a larger proportion of less capability. There needs to be more numbers, more attrition reserve, and more people. People and Aircraft, face it, get tired and burned out. Spread it out a little, and life will be much easier.

Now if I could explain that to civilian law makers.....
Putting Warheads on foreheads

Fifinella

Judy LaValley, Maj, CAP
Asst. DCP, LAWG
SWR-LA-001
GRW #2753

Gunner C


MajFitzpatrick

it must be nice to pass gas all day and get paid for it....
Putting Warheads on foreheads

jimmydeanno

If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

afgeo4

Quote from: LtFitzpatrick on April 24, 2008, 04:36:41 AM
As long as they can get tankers in the air soon. I waited in Maron Spain for 13 days before getting tanker support. And we were priority because we were returning from desert duty.
With Ops Tempo like it is, we just need more Tankers. The thought of technological multiplier is great, but lets do simple math. 1 thing can't be in two places at 1 time. And when you have so few numbers, when one goes down because of maintenance/accident/combat, you have a larger proportion of less capability. There needs to be more numbers, more attrition reserve, and more people. People and Aircraft, face it, get tired and burned out. Spread it out a little, and life will be much easier.

Now if I could explain that to civilian law makers.....

Gotta ask... you were on the ground in Maron, Spain for 13 days, not in the air, right?

If so, you weren't priority. 1st, priority goes to birds running low on fuel that are currently in the air. 2nd, priority goes to people stuck in combat zones. 3rd, priority goes to people in hardship/harsh environment zones.

13 days in Spain sounds more like a vacation to me.

However, you were looking for some gas to go across the pond? If so, you were probably waiting for a KC-10 to be freed up. 135's can't go out far enough over the Atlantic and pass enough gas to cargo aircraft to be useful.
GEORGE LURYE

scooter

As a former SAC Tanker driver I am sorry to see the old bird go. Flew the A model for 10 years, some of those years before the Collins FD109 flight director. Converted lots of JP4 and water into black smoke and noise, not a whole bunch of thrust though. Made for long slow takeoff rolls, some almost two minutes long. I saw the departure ends of long runways from very low altitudes/high speeds and was amazed the performance data worked. Managed to move to Airborne Command Post ECs with TF33 engines and what a difference the extra 20000 pounds of thrust made. Felt like a sports car in comparison to the water wagon. However this shakes out with the KC-X, I hope the airplane is as reliable as the old Boeing 717. Thats what the Boeing data plate said in the crew entry chute. It was the missing number. ;D

afgeo4

Quote from: scooter on April 24, 2008, 10:21:46 PM
As a former SAC Tanker driver I am sorry to see the old bird go. Flew the A model for 10 years, some of those years before the Collins FD109 flight director. Converted lots of JP4 and water into black smoke and noise, not a whole bunch of thrust though. Made for long slow takeoff rolls, some almost two minutes long. I saw the departure ends of long runways from very low altitudes/high speeds and was amazed the performance data worked. Managed to move to Airborne Command Post ECs with TF33 engines and what a difference the extra 20000 pounds of thrust made. Felt like a sports car in comparison to the water wagon. However this shakes out with the KC-X, I hope the airplane is as reliable as the old Boeing 717. Thats what the Boeing data plate said in the crew entry chute. It was the missing number. ;D
I gotta give it to Boeing engineers and USAF maintainers... the 707 has the longest and most useful career of any aircraft EVER (C-130s that fly now have almost nothing in common with the original versions, so they don't really count).
GEORGE LURYE

MajFitzpatrick

KC-10 wasn't the problem for our C-17, But as an ESTA Team member (Jet Catcher) we needed the KC-135s for at least part way of the pond for our Vipers. Finally a 135 from one of our squadrons in the UK picked up our Vipers, and a couple hours later we departed on our C-17 for a base state side.

You are correct we were not number one priority, we were out of the hot spot and returning CONUS, but if you remember Maron is a Trans base, and the AF doesn't like keeping large numbers of stagnent assets on trans in foreign countries. Even if there is a decent US Presence. (unless is say, Spang, Mildenhal, or Rammstein...)
Putting Warheads on foreheads

PHall

Quote from: scooter on April 24, 2008, 10:21:46 PM
As a former SAC Tanker driver I am sorry to see the old bird go. Flew the A model for 10 years, some of those years before the Collins FD109 flight director. Converted lots of JP4 and water into black smoke and noise, not a whole bunch of thrust though. Made for long slow takeoff rolls, some almost two minutes long. I saw the departure ends of long runways from very low altitudes/high speeds and was amazed the performance data worked.

Raise your hand if you have left tire tracks in the overrun during a KC-135A takeoff on a hot day with a max fuel load.
(i.e. Red Flag TTF at March in August.)

afgeo4

Quote from: LtFitzpatrick on April 25, 2008, 08:08:42 AM
KC-10 wasn't the problem for our C-17, But as an ESTA Team member (Jet Catcher) we needed the KC-135s for at least part way of the pond for our Vipers. Finally a 135 from one of our squadrons in the UK picked up our Vipers, and a couple hours later we departed on our C-17 for a base state side.

You are correct we were not number one priority, we were out of the hot spot and returning CONUS, but if you remember Maron is a Trans base, and the AF doesn't like keeping large numbers of stagnent assets on trans in foreign countries. Even if there is a decent US Presence. (unless is say, Spang, Mildenhal, or Rammstein...)
What happened? They usually route through Turkey, Germany and the Azores. That routing reduces the need to refuel in air (a not so fun task for a tired pilot).
GEORGE LURYE

scooter

#38
Quote from: PHall on April 25, 2008, 07:30:36 PM
Raise your hand if you have left tire tracks in the overrun during a KC-135A takeoff on a hot day with a max fuel load.
(i.e. Red Flag TTF at March in August.)

Left a few at a place called U Tapao and launched uphill over the cliff at Guam.

Tags - MIKE

Fifinella

Quote from: PHall on April 25, 2008, 07:30:36 PM
Raise your hand if you have left tire tracks in the overrun during a KC-135A takeoff on a hot day with a max fuel load.
(i.e. Red Flag TTF at March in August.)
Back when man thought he could burn water...
Judy LaValley, Maj, CAP
Asst. DCP, LAWG
SWR-LA-001
GRW #2753