Boeing Says Pentagon Found Its Tanker Superior (airbus vs. boeing saga)

[Wretched Excess]

Boeing Says Pentagon Found Its Tanker Superior

Boeing could have enough fuel to have that disputed tanker deal overturned. Boeing says the Pentagon found that the KC-767 was superior to the Airbus model in at least two key areas.

Boeing says the Air Force found that the tanker had more mission capabilities and a better chance of surviving combat.

710 KIRO Aviation Analyst Richard Aboulafia says, "It's pretty clear that there is this disconnect between what the Air Force was saying when it awarded the contract and the kind of information that's been uncovered now."

All signs are pointing to trouble within the Air Force bureaucracy. Aboulafia says, "I think it's safe to say there are a lot of questions yet again about the Air Force's procurement process."

The Government Accountability Office is investigating the complaints, but even if they rule in favor of Boeing, there is no guarantee that they'll get the contract.

Aboulafia says, "Technically the G.A.O. upholds complaints, that is to say, rather than undoing deals, they give the competition new life."

Aboulafia sees two possible outcomes, "One, of course, is that the protest is upheld and there really is a re-compete. Another possibility is that, because of political action, somehow the KC-767 gets added to the Air Force's procurement decision."

Link

the air force's new tanker deal has been a debacle for years, but the airbus vs. boeing competition in general always gets my attention. 

[djones520]

Anything that can shake up the beuaracracy upstairs is good in my book.  If there is one thing I can't stand about the AF, it's how stagnant things are because of it.

[Wretched Excess]

Anything that can shake up the beuaracracy upstairs is good in my book.  If there is one thing I can't stand about the AF, it's how stagnant things are because of it.

meanwhile, the KC-135's are getting almost impossible to keep flying.



edited to change link to a better story

[djones520]

*shrugs*  P-3's are much worse in my opinion.  I supported a squadron of 135's while deployed to Manas, and did just fine.

IMO, the AF should just replace the 135's with some more KC-10's.  Their much more versatile, have a larger fuel capacity, and we won't have to spend millions of dollars building a training program, and training all the maintainers how to handle them.

[Crazy Horse]

*shrugs*  P-3's are much worse in my opinion.  I supported a squadron of 135's while deployed to Manas, and did just fine.

IMO, the AF should just replace the 135's with some more KC-10's.  Their much more versatile, have a larger fuel capacity, and we won't have to spend millions of dollars building a training program, and training all the maintainers how to handle them.

Because a DC-10 hasn't been made in 20 years.

[Wretched Excess]

This whole thing has been an absolute debacle.  From Boeing's blatant illegal activity, to ambiguous design specifications of the Air Force, to American favoritism rants.

I think at this point, I would have just have gone with the outrageous and illegal lease deal.  at least the AF would
have it's much needed tanker by now.

[Crazy Horse]

This whole thing has been an absolute debacle.  From Boeing's blatant illegal activity, to ambiguous design specifications of the Air Force, to American favoritism rants.

I think at this point, I would have just have gone with the outrageous and illegal lease deal.  at least the AF would
have it's much needed tanker by now.

They are going to get their new tanker..............and it will be an Airbus A300, which the majority of will be made in the USA

[djones520]

*shrugs*  P-3's are much worse in my opinion.  I supported a squadron of 135's while deployed to Manas, and did just fine.

IMO, the AF should just replace the 135's with some more KC-10's.  Their much more versatile, have a larger fuel capacity, and we won't have to spend millions of dollars building a training program, and training all the maintainers how to handle them.

Because a DC-10 hasn't been made in 20 years.

So everyones forgotten how to make them?

[Rebel]

So everyones forgotten how to make them?

Why would you want to? It's old technology.

[djones520]

So everyones forgotten how to make them?

Why would you want to? It's old technology.

Most of the "technology" in our aircraft is new.  It's the airframes that are falling apart.  So build new and PROVEN airframes.  Don't waste millions of my tax dollars dicking around trying to find the company that gives the best blow job.

[Crazy Horse]

*shrugs*  P-3's are much worse in my opinion.  I supported a squadron of 135's while deployed to Manas, and did just fine.

IMO, the AF should just replace the 135's with some more KC-10's.  Their much more versatile, have a larger fuel capacity, and we won't have to spend millions of dollars building a training program, and training all the maintainers how to handle them.

Because a DC-10 hasn't been made in 20 years.

Usually the destroy the tooling and all when they close the lines. So while they may not have forgotten how to make em...........they lack the means to make em.
So everyones forgotten how to make them?

[Chris_]

Anything that can shake up the beuaracracy upstairs is good in my book.  If there is one thing I can't stand about the AF, it's how stagnant things are because of it.

meanwhile, the KC-135's are getting almost impossible to keep flying.



edited to change link to a better story

Either way, they are 707s -- a fabulous technology in the 60's. How it has come to this, I don't completely understand.  But my BIL was a Navy Firing Technician (or a title similar) and he told me many of the missiles are using 80/80 chips even now.
 

[Chris_]

So everyones forgotten how to make them?

Why would you want to? It's old technology.

Well, we could upgrade them with those new-fangled 5" diskettes instead of the 8-1/4" ones...

[Chris_]

The 8080-series chips are much more heat resistant than newer chips.  My guess is that companies have decided that re-tooling for 8080 production would be too expensive.  Even NASA has taken to scrounging for old computer parts for the space suttle (I hear it uses 5 1/4" floppy drives).

[Wretched Excess]

Anything that can shake up the beuaracracy upstairs is good in my book.  If there is one thing I can't stand about the AF, it's how stagnant things are because of it.

meanwhile, the KC-135's are getting almost impossible to keep flying.



edited to change link to a better story

Either way, they are 707s -- a fabulous technology in the 60's. How it has come to this, I don't completely understand.  But my BIL was a Navy Firing Technician (or a title similar) and he told me many of the missiles are using 80/80 chips even now.
 

even if you could strap a cray supercomputer to a missile, what would you do with it?  you only need so much computing power to hit a target;  anything else is overkill.

[Wretched Excess]

if they keep it up, they are going to have f-22s landing in the interstate and refueling at the
texaco station on the corner.

[Ptarmigan]

Government is slow to adapt anything.

[megimoo]

*shrugs*  P-3's are much worse in my opinion.  I supported a squadron of 135's while deployed to Manas, and did just fine.

IMO, the AF should just replace the 135's with some more KC-10's.  Their much more versatile, have a larger fuel capacity, and we won't have to spend millions of dollars building a training program, and training all the maintainers how to handle them.

Because a DC-10 hasn't been made in 20 years.

why did Boeing cut up the tooling to the KC-10 Tanker after they bought Douglas?
 it may have been a "far better bird" but it wasn't unavailable because it wasn't commercially viable any longer and had been taken out of production. Even if the tooling had been stored, and production restarted (at tremendous expense) a tanker based on the 767 or 777 would be better. Of course the KC-10 is better than the KC-135, but none of your friends have ever compared a KC-10 with a KC-767. Only two exist and the second one just delivered to Japan.