# KC-X Contract to be announced later today



## DA SWO (Feb 24, 2011)

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123244023

/24/2011 - *WASHINGTON (AFNS)* -- Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology and Logistics Ashton Carter, Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz will announce the KC-X tanker contract award at 5:10 p.m. EST, Feb. 24.

This news conference will stream live on the Pentagon Channel website, http://www.pentagonchannel.mil.

*This will be interesting, Boeing has an easy GAO contract challenge if they lose (EADS is challenged ethically).*


----------



## mike_cos (Feb 24, 2011)

For those who missed the start of the project

http://www.operazionispeciali.com//res/site28430/res514017_RL34398.pdf


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 24, 2011)

It appears Boeing won.  I am glad EADS lost.  The first bid was rigged, and the AF was deservidly spanked.  Yea Boeing!!!


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 24, 2011)

GOOD now maybe I won't have to listen to all of those annoying commercials when I'm driving too and from work.


----------



## AWP (Feb 24, 2011)

Good deal.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 24, 2011)

Sen Sessons needs to keep out of it.


----------



## Manolito (Feb 25, 2011)

How old is the KC 135 in service today?


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 25, 2011)

Manolito said:


> How old is the KC 135 in service today?



Last birdwas built in 1966, 45 years ago.


----------



## Manolito (Feb 25, 2011)

Thanks! There were some being used out of Guam that were old in 1965 but nothing like the B-52s that flew out of Guam.


----------



## LibraryLady (Feb 26, 2011)

Heh.  You should see all the politoco types in this neck of the woods spouting about how hard they worked to get this here.

They're talking 11,000 jobs here (Everett area) and I forget how many nationwide due to this project.

LL


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 26, 2011)

LibraryLady said:


> Heh. You should see all the politoco types in this neck of the woods spouting about how hard they worked to get this here.
> 
> They're talking 11,000 jobs here (Everett area) and I forget how many nationwide due to this project.
> 
> LL



Your politicians are a bunch of fags.
Washington Congressional Delegation fucked this up in the beginning, birds could be flying combat missions if your CD hdn't been such dickheads.

The Mother of Success is a whore, for Success has many fathers.
The Mother of Failure is a virgin, for Failure has no Father.


----------



## LibraryLady (Feb 26, 2011)

SOWT said:


> *ALL* politicians are a bunch of fags...



Fixed it for ya... 

Seriously - not going to disagree with you.  I liked Patty Murray for first term, it went all down hill after that.

LL


----------



## Manolito (Feb 26, 2011)

I don't care who fouled it up but 11,000 American jobs Rock.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 26, 2011)

Manolito said:


> I don't care who fouled it up but 11,000 American jobs Rock.



Number of jobs doesn't go up or down based on who got the contract; EADS would build the plane in AL; creating 11000 jobs.
The planes could be flying combat support missions now if the politicians had been honest.


----------



## Manolito (Feb 26, 2011)

I thought EADS was based in the Netherlands.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 27, 2011)

Manolito said:


> I thought EADS was based in the Netherlands.



They were going to move the production line to Mobile AL.  That way they complied with the Buy American act.  I also think the offer to move to Mobile should have been viewed as a bribe, eliminating the plane from the competition.


----------



## Manolito (Feb 27, 2011)

I appreciate the information. When I was working I followed a couple of Boeing space contracts. They used components manufactured in 40 different states in the US and that is what impressed me about the company. I am thinking keeping the production close to home is a good idea.
It is pretty apparent to all that have dealt with Billion dollar contracts most decisions are made by a very few people on the best interest of a few. Fair and open competition is only a phrase not a way of life.
Aircraft are a lot like guns. Few great designs come along and then they stay for a very long time. I wonder if the designer who came up with the original C130 had any idea how long it would be around? It would be a great day if I could talk to the engineer that designed the landing gear on the B-52. I would buy dinner and all the drinks he or she could consume for a couple of hours of information.


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 28, 2011)

What's wrong with the KC135 that it needs to be replaced? Rewing, up-grade avionics, re-engine if needbe and you've got a _proven_ platform that you know works and everyone is trained on without having to spend billions during a time of fiscal cutbacks.


----------



## LibraryLady (Feb 28, 2011)

Manolito said:


> I appreciate the information. When I was working I followed a couple of Boeing space contracts. They used components manufactured in 40 different states in the US and that is what impressed me about the company. I am thinking keeping the production close to home is a good idea...



Count me old, but I remember when most of the subcontractors for Boeing were here in this neck of the woods.  The cost to transport parts was negligible.  Granted, they are still in the states, but I'm not a fan of an economy that requires so much transportation built into goods.



SpitfireV said:


> What's wrong with the KC135 that it needs to be replaced? Rewing, up-grade avionics, re-engine if needbe and you've got a _proven_ platform that you know works and everyone is trained on without having to spend billions during a time of fiscal cutbacks.



Age, Spit.  The KC's are just flat out old.

LL


----------



## Scotth (Feb 28, 2011)

SpitfireV said:


> What's wrong with the KC135 that it needs to be replaced? Rewing, up-grade avionics, re-engine if needbe and you've got a _proven_ platform that you know works and everyone is trained on without having to spend billions during a time of fiscal cutbacks.



Stress and fatigue on the airframe eventually wears the plane out. You can do maintenance and upgrades to extend the life of aircraft and those things have been done on most platforms to some degree to extend the aircrafts life. Eventually you hit the point were inspection and maintenance cost and aircraft downtime to complete that work outweighs the cost of just replacing the aircraft.



> Between 1993 and 2003, the amount of KC-135 depot maintenance work doubled, and the overhaul cost per aircraft tripled. In 1996 it cost $8,400 per flight hour for the KC-135, and in 2002 this had grown to $11,000. The Air Force’s 15-year cost estimates project further significant growth through fiscal year 2017. For example, operations and support costs for the KC-135 fleet are estimated to grow from about $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2003 to $5.1 billion (2003 dollars) in fiscal year 2017, an increase of $2.9 billion, or over 130 percent, which represents an annual growth rate of about 6.2 percent. In March 2009 the Air Force indicated that KC-135s would require additional skin replacement to allow their continued use beyond 2018.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-135_Stratotanker

You end up spending the same amount of money. Looking at the numbers suggested if over the next 20 years of operating those old aircraft you plan on spending 100 billion to maintain them. Can I cut my maintenance expense down to say 30 billion by buying new aircraft and taking that 70 billion I would have spent regardless and buy new aircraft. That 70 billion spent on new birds is giving me a 40 year solution to my operational needs while maintaining that old bird is only giving me another 10 or 20 year solution.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 28, 2011)

SpitfireV said:


> What's wrong with the KC135 that it needs to be replaced? Rewing, up-grade avionics, re-engine if needbe and you've got a _proven_ platform that you know works and everyone is trained on without having to spend billions during a time of fiscal cutbacks.



Do you have any idea how much that costs?
You still have a fuselage that is 60 years old.  How many 60 year old cars are tooling around your neighborhood?  FWIW-The 135 family has been rewinged, re-engined, and given upgraded avionics.  Fuselage corrosion, and a plane that is flat worn out is what we have sitting on the ramp.

Scotth hit it pretty well with his post.  Another consideration, manpower; we can maintain the newer aircraft with less people working fewer hours.  Our maintenance guys/gals run 12 hour shifts trying to keep up.  New airframes might allow them to get a weekend off now and then.


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 28, 2011)

Points taken.


----------

