Boeing Touts KC-X Cost, Jobs

Boeing Touts KC-X Cost, Jobs

Boeing’s tanker bid is in for the $40 billion program. The company focused on size and cost in its release announcing the bid.

The 8,000-page proposal, “hand-delivered” to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, “offers an American-made, 767-based multi-mission tanker that will satisfy all 372 mandatory Air Force requirements and be capable, survivable, and combat-ready at the lowest cost to the taxpayer,” according to the company’s press release.

Aiming squarely at claims by EADS NA that its plane can offload more fuel at faster rates and has a tanker flying and ready to get built, Boeing said its tanker “will deliver widebody capabilities in a narrowbody footprint, operate in any theater or from any base, and — with the lowest operating cost of any tanker in the competition — save the Air Force and the American taxpayers billions of dollars.”


One of the attributes mentioned in the Boeing release — the digital flight deck using 787 Dreamliner displays — raises interesting questions about cost that Boeing has so far not addressed. This is the biggest change from the last bid. Several close observers of the tanker competition say placing such modern technology in a relatively old airframe will require substantial and probably costly modifications.

Among the reasons for the Boeing decision to install the 787 technology is that this is proof of commitment to the company’s “design philosophy that places the pilot in command rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability.” That’s a nice dig at Airbus’ fly-by-wire approach which places considerable reliance on intelligent software and built-in systems to manage airplane performance.

Boeing also claims it will provide “tens of thousands more jobs in the United States than an Airbus A330 tanker that is designed and largely manufactured in Europe.” EADS NA claims 48,000 U.S. jobs will result should it be awarded the contract. Biggest difference here is that Boeing claims “more than 800 suppliers in more than 40 states” while EADS claims 200 U.S. companies on its supplier base.

Join the Conversation

My car got a ESC system.
Why does Boeing think this isn’t smart for aircraft?

Because if the pilot or crew need to respond to a threat of some sort with a hard, radical maneuver, they want the plane to respond rather than have a software algorithm override the input.

“Several close observers of the tanker competition say placing such modern technology in a relatively old airframe will require substantial and probably costly modifications.”

But a new dash number of 767 was ALWAYS the plan! “Hey guys look here’s a shiny new 767 with all the latest bells and whistles, it’s even got an iPod dock, please don’t ask why the 787 is late again”

Firm fix price the winning contract and keep the governemt IPTs out of the plants until it is delivered. Let the contractor design, test and deliver. If it is already designed and ready to go into production then let them prove it by keeping the requirements from changing for enternity.……and give us a plane ASAP. Let’s see if the the DOD acquisition process can be done right this time around without endless oversight .…..

Thud105, you are transfering old habits of your Vietnam era aircraft to a large non-fighter that won’t be dodging any SAM or air-to-air missile…and shouldn’t be anywhere near them if AWACS is functioning. Plus, if the “USAF Flight Plan” is any indication, you someday may want an optionally-manned or unmanned tanker that uses the same sort of software and fly-by-wire.

I asked an aircraft mechanic who is qualified on both Air Bus and Boeing which he prefered. Enthusiaticaly “Air Bus”. When asked why his response was “Over time. Air Bus needs more maintenance”. Also due to design and controls the Air Bus can never exceed 1 g loading. The Boeings can. Add the number of jobs and I want the Boeing product to win.

“Also due to design and controls the Air Bus can never exceed 1 g loading”

Hmmm…That must make take-offs and turns a real b!tch…

Where’s an ‘eyes roll’ emoticon when you need it?

I would rather have an American plane built in the US. Do we really want a military aircraft built by Europeans that for the most part dont like us especially when it comes to our military. Unless it’s france and they are losing a war again.

2/2 ACR, get this right the plane is ASSEMBLIED in the Unites States. Most of the fuselage is coming from overseas. Boeing has outsource a lot of the airfrme to Japan, China and Europe.

Remember “All” of the Airframe would have to be built in the US not Canada, Mexico, Japan, China or Europe to be called “MADE” in America. Same applies to the Airbus.

Good Morning Folks,

The jobs issue, witch clearly favors EADS, should really not be an issue here. This is a defense issue and the need of the Air Force, Navy, Army and Marines should be the only consideration. But politics being politics and basket of money being given by both Boeing and EADS to members of Congress says this isn’t over yet, he** members of Congress need a month off just to spend some of it. I doubt if the third time will be the charm.

If it is according to the WSJ. Boeing will create about 4,500 jobs mostly in California, and save about 20,000 in its existing plants. If EADS get the contract it will have to build facilities which means construction jobs, install new production lines which is estimated to be 48,000 US jobs, mostly in the Golf area which as you all know has some huge problems right now. The EADS contract would create about 10,000 jobs in Europe.

Then we have the Russian bid which presents some very interesting economics. The US is already in agreement to lease to buy six An-124’s, and is in contract negotiations for an additional order of An-124’s that could be somewhere between 100–150 aircraft. The US is currently under contract with the Russians to purchase at least 75 MI-17 helicopters for Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Don’t count the Russians out. In recent months the US Dept. of Commerce has lifted the ban it had on Rosoboron Export, the state owned arms dealer and OK’ed a deal between Thalas/Angenieux for NATO optics to be used on the T-90 Tank, and the Russian are involved with the same company for optical/electrical systems for the 5th. Generation of Russian fighters and an new class of Frigates yet to be built. Test of the Frigate systems were conducted in March of 2009.

It is noted that deals the US has opposed in the past like the $1.5 billion contract with Libya that including modernization of its old soviet era T-72 tanks and BMP-1’s and not objecting to the amphibious ship deal between France and The Russian Federation that involves technology transfers that have been/I guess are still classified.

The tanker affair is far from over, wagering money is saying we will be talking about this deal a year from now.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Uh Cole, you might want to discuss your statement with an AirBus test pilot who was unable to over-ride the computer, and ended up crashing.

Boeing should win the contract. The Air Tanker contract ought to be the first major step in the rebuilding of the U.S. military industrial complex.

U.S.A. all The Way!

JMN

The “first major step in the rebuilding of the U.S. military industrial complex” needs to be total revision of the entire contracting and procurement system.

I should know, since I worked in it for more than a decade.

It is, in fact an extremely inefficient bureaucratic system, horrendous in the amount of administrative hours required to get anything done. The “paper” is more important than what is purchased.

They should make a tanker that can carry a million or more pounds of fuel only then would it be worth it. More fuel means more aircraft can stay in the air longer. Aicrew fatigue can easily be resolved by doing hot pit, hot seats, reloading and going back out.

Amen to revising the whole procurement process. I had a military career (active and reserve) and 32 years with Boieng and have watched this debacle with more than a passing interest. We went from concept to a real airplane with the first 747 in 42 months. Built the building, trained a workforce and put together a supplier network to build the airplane in 42 months! It now takes 8 years just to get through the procurement process. The Washington State legislative delegation did their part in screwing up the last tanker deal too. After voting for every reduction in military spending through 2 Clinton administrations and calling it the Peace Dividend, our legislators wanted to create a jobs program after the 9/11 impact on the aviation industry and thought they could stimulate the Boeing business by leasing tankers to get around the procurement process. the Air Force is not without responsibility either. Nice to have gadgets are just that, nice to have. Tell the builder what you need, not what you want. And be very careful using new, state of the art technology taken from the civilian aircraft market. because it can be construed as the same as government subsidy when used on a military airframe.

Byron, less than 100 An-124s have been built. How is the US going to buy non-existent Russian cargo aircraft? It would make more sense to modernize more of our C-5 fleet.

Byron,
Do you have a source for the “additional order for AN-124’s that could be somewhere between 100–150 aircraft”? I don’t see the U.S. buying AN-124’s in that large number unless it is a westernized version (U.S. electronics and engines) built in the U.S. with a front end loading capacity as well.

I think you made a very good point about the additional non-defense jobs that would be created by giving the contract to EADS.

You mean the test pilot who while testing an extremely aft CG with heavy water ballast, decided it was wise to shut off an engine and partial hydraulics while climbing to all of 2,000′? Is Wikipedia correct?

Happily concede that use of autopilot in said scenario was not wise. Yet somehow automated launch/recovery appears to help enlisted Army UAS operators to more safely outperform highly trained USAF Predator/Reaper pilots who insist on doing it manually. Hmm, what does that say about pilot error vs. autopilot error?

EADS has placed a new advertisment outside of, and across the street from AFMC HQ. It proudly states “Made in America”. WOW, do you really think anyone will believe that? It could easily state the truth, assembled in America. Why, and how, can they get away with such outright lies? Wait, just like their European Government subsidies, their lips are moving, and if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it.

Remember when we sold the F-14 to Iran. When they pissed us off, we stoped spare parts delivery and shut down their Air Force. It took Iran years to get spare parts from France and Germany and start flying again. Do we want France to have that power over our military? Yes, final assembly will be in Alabama, but all parts flow will be controlled by EADS (France).

The KC 767 is flying in several countries now. Why would the US need to have a European country build a tanker that is bigger and will require the building of new support equipment. This is just dumb. Boeing Iron and Steel rules.

2/2 ACR, did you not read about the trouble Boeing is having with its suppliers.……from Italy? Boing (intentional misspelling) cannot build the tanker (or any other of its airplanes) without outsourcing.

And it is OK that Boing (misspelled intentionally) does the same thing?

You need to cite your source on a large U.S. military AN-124 order… this appears to be totally fabricated, either by you or whatever website you read it off of.

The Anatov tanker “proposal” is absurd. I don’t think there is anyone who is taking that seriously.

The project is still too expensive.Rep-Paul and Dem-Frank want to cut the military budget because the Ponziconomy cannot afford for this spending.Fannie May and Freddie Mac sized military has to be down-sized.

The military procurement process is badly broken and has been for years. I was a part of the Comanche team and the fact that the program was shut down is an example of the fact that DoD project managers are out of touch with reality. Most of the major weapon systems development and procurement process has nothing to do with national defense and security and everything to do with personal advancement of the project managers. In the case of the Comanche it turned into a competition between the manufacturers of obsolete airframes and their Congressional and military supporters and those who saw the need for a vastly improved airframe and weapons systems. While it is true that part of that weapons system was oversold, mainly the MEP package, the Comanche was a superior airframe and weapons system when compared to the Apache and the widely, ill-conceived OH Kiowa Warrior.

I agree with the commenter about the mountains of paperwork. The RFP response from one contractor for a new weapons system 20 years ago filled TWO tractor trailers; 30 tons of paper. Who at DoD was going to read that material? In the infamous $600 hammer debacle of years past, the hammer cost $14.95 and all the rest was administrative cost generated form the paperwork requirement of the DoD procurement system.

The cost of military equipment development and procurement will not change until the culture that has grown up with it changes. Good luck on that one now that the Supreme Court has codified corporations as people with the same rights and privileges. Corporations are pieces of paper in filing cabinets whose rights and privileges can be modified by state legislatures as is proven by the fact that so many corporations are registered in Delaware because of their “corporate friendly” registration requirements.

The tanker contract is all about military careers and corporate profit, national security is secondary. If these companies were really concerned about national security they would stop undermining the US economy be ending their outsourcing of US jobs to foreign countries, one of which, China, has been an adversary of the US since it’s founding.

Perhaps its just plain old hope, but as we speak, Boeing is modifying a production hanger in Evertt, Washington, that is going to be used for the Tanker fuselage assembly. Tool Design and fabrication is underway.

Good Morning Folks,

A report that I git this AM from a source that is not 100% reliable and I wouldn’t put any money on but the source on the type of issues is batting about 800 says Boeing came in third place on price. The AF has already indicated that it is intending to wheel and deal with those 372 “requirements”.

Their is some discussion now about Boeing ability to take the contract. Models about the financial stability of Boeing are not showing a robust company. Boeing is betting all of it future on the 787 while the market is downsizing and looking at more basic no frills smaller regional and mid range aircraft.

Boeings other efforts at foreign sales have been much lest the expected. New players in the fighter market including India, The Ukraine, South Korea and Brazil are all low cost countries with out the huge debt service and future retiree obligations that Boeing has.

Getting this contract might be a “Poison Pill” that brings Boeing down, sometime it’s best to fold ‘em and pass.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

old391,

‘Just’ ~30% of the 767 airframe is manufactured overseas vs >95% of the A330. AND Boeing has the capability to manufacture 100% of the 767.

Right now, Boeing is re-doing the assembly line, updating tooling and preparing for the awarding of the Tanker. The assembly line is already there and with a few modifications be ready to begin the fuselage manufacturing process.

It was an easy mistake. The sign was made in America. The plane will be made in France and Europe. A plant will be built and discarded in Alabama when the costs shift.

The time to build a new plant ‚train a new staff and translate and verify the internal Airbus processes from French to English will sink the built in America but if EADS gets the contract they will come back in 3,6 and 9 years to say we need more money or we cant build this in America. We will walk away and you have no choice. So pay us more.

The military was downsized enough in the 1990s. Enough with this “slash and cut” thinking.

well… the world changed too that had something to do with the Comanche being killed. but i agree with you on top of that DoD dorks up acquisitions generally.
I have a solution to DoD’s systems problems. One of the nightmare problems is aging, obsolete platforms. DoD should give up on trying to develop platforms from scratch. Let industry develop basic platforms on their own to replace the ones that need replacing. Then when industry is ready to bid firm fixed price, DoD should buy these basic platforms. Once the replacements for obsolete platforms are fielded, THEN DoD could attempt cost plus development modifications to customize to its infinitely impossible to please and changing desires.
DoD needs to stop wasting money on dumb R&D projects, and instead focus on building national security capabilities through PROC & O&M spending.

Good Afternoon Folks,

To StopRastingMyTax$. On your suggesting of have the defense industry spend its own money and develop products and offer them for sale to the government, much the same as a capitalist market works, take some risk, make or lose some money.

I’m all for it, but because of structural ineffcienies, very bad management, to high debt service, to high cost of long term pension and retiree healthcare benefits, a government that will pay what evey bill is handed to them with out questions asked, some really bad mergers, a declining world economy and reduced defense expenditures by all countries but the US, all of the major (big ten) US based defense contractors have very shakey balance sheets and the business models projected into the future are not good.

The GM solution might be the only option for the US defense industry. The 2–3% annual increase that Sec. Gate told them a forthnight ago will not keep them in business

It is of note that BAE is in house funding A UCAV for the Anglo/French market, but it is not for it’s largest market the United States. Of course why should they when they can get the DoD to write them checks for R&D it appears the Brits and French don’t pay that expensive game.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Cool! someone agrees with me! After DoD screws up the acquisition program they often end up buying systems they didn’t develop from scratch themselves anyway (MRAP, M-ATV, eg). They should have to live with the current state of technology that the market can provide at the least risk to the taxpayer. They should focus on enterprise-wide capabilities and accomplishing national security missions, not painting themselves into an impossible corner by pursuing technologies that don’t exist in the most ridiculously constrained programs ever concieved by mankind. Smarten up, DoD!

But Byron — also note than in my proposal a steady stream of PROC and O&M business to the defense industry would maintain its health. I’m not saying the Defense budget as a whole should be cut, just the stupidest, most wasteful R&D projects.

Good Afternoon Folks,

On the tanker bid, I just got my second source on the number and it appears that $29.5 billion was the low number and of course it wasn’t Boeing. It look like “Sleepless in Seattle and Chicago”

The fun has has begun.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

But how long would it take them to gear up to do 100% of the 767 in the US and at what COST? It could be COST Prohibited, cause not you have to expense out the cost of retooling or reconditioning the old equipment and then hiring Union workers at current union wage scale. Might break Boeing

Good Morning Old 391,

You asked the question I wanted. The cost first, $150 million per plane, no extras, the AF can chose between five air frames, R&D is in the price, a new factory will be built and The Russian Federation today announced they also would buy tankers that are compatible with what the USAF buys.

This would give the DoD the option of using Russian tankers for refueling US aircraft or for the US to refuel Russian Federation aircraft on missions in some of these land locked countries.

The Russian bider left open delivery, giving the USAF the call on when and how many they want and the time duration of the contract, also the number of 179 for the Russians is not a hard number. If the USAF wants more or less they say they will hold the price.

Of course there is a word for this, it’s called Capitalism.

Boeings Plan B it appears is to play the “Buy American” card, I would hope they have some adults in the company that realize that they do a lot of business with foreign governments and airlines and this won’t go over well with them.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Nowhere near as much time OR money as you want everyone to think.

Your ESC System fails you pull over to the side of the road!!!!!!

National Security Issues aside, who’s qualified to keep a secret? Honestly.

With openly traded defense contract designs I don’t feel any safer than slingshots. They’re all Pirates. Play baseball, not good guy.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.