Boeing Shocks With ‘Clear’ Tanker Win

Boeing Shocks With ‘Clear’ Tanker Win

UPDATES: Boeing Pledges ‘On Time, On Budget;’ EADS NA Says Boeing Pick “High Risk;”

Boeing continued its dominance of the U.S. airborne tanker business, winning  the $35 billion contract to build 179 KC-X tankers, one of the biggest defense contracts in the next decade. The award shocked experienced observers who had predicted a big win for EADS NA. Word came from a Pentagon email announcing the initial $3.5 billion contract.

Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn, Pentagon procurement czar Ashton Carter, Air Force Secretary Mike Donley and Air Force Chief Gen. Norton Schwartz stood together in the Pentagon’s briefing room, sending a clear signal of resolve and institutional commitment to the incredibly contentious contract award. Donley, flanked by Schwartz, made the official announcement.


A congressional source said Boeing was the “clear winner.” Lynn repeated the mantra and told reporters during the press briefing “that I think what we can tell you is Boeing was the clear winner” when asked how close was the competition.

The difference between the two bids may have come down the difference in fuel consumption, speculated Loren Thompson, defense consultant and analyst at the Lexington Institute. “The Airbus plane burns over one ton more of fuel per flight hour than the Boeing plane. Multiply that by 40 years and that’s a lot of money,” Thompson said. Boeing has argued for some time that its fuel consumption rate would save taxpayers “tens of billions” of dollars over the life of the program.

Carter told reporters that the requirements this time were “absolutely clear from the warfighter” and he touted the award as a reflection of the Gates Pentagon’s efforts to “deliver better value to the taxpayer.”

Donley said the “award marks a long overdue start to a much needed program.”

The award will raise questions among America’s allies whether the Pentagon can open its door and make crucial contract awards to them. It will also provide a convincing argument to European governments when they oppose the U.S. when it presses for entry into their traditionally closely held foreign defense markets.

But representatives from both companies have privately acknowledged that today’s contract announcment is just the beginning of what may be the toughest fight so far in the decade-old quest for a new airborne tanker.

And EADS signalled that within minutes of the contract announcement, saying in a statement that the Air Force had picked “a high-risk concept aircraft over the proven, more capable KC-45…” The company’s board chairman, Ralph Crosby, said the company’s review of the award “will take some time” given the program’s complexity. In a clear signal to financial markets, CEO Sean O’Keefe said “it’s important to remember that this is one business among many for EADS in the United States.”

A Boeing statement from spokesman Bill Barksdale countered that, saying the newly-designated KC-46A tankers “will be built using a low-risk approach to manufacturing by a trained and experienced U.S. work force at existing Boeing facilities.” And Jim Albaugh, president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, made an important pledge that will be remembered and quoted throughout the program: “Boeing has always been committed to the integrity of the competitive process, and the men and women across our Boeing commercial and defense teams and our entire supplier network are ready to extend that commitment to delivering these tankers on time and on budget.”

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is ready should the losing company present a bid protest to the Government Accountability Office.

“Let me say right off we have assumed there might be a protest,” Air Force Secretary Mike Donley said last week at the Air Force Association conference in Orlando. “We have taken a lot of care and extra time in our source selection process.” Donley, said “we certainly hope the offerors will not decide to protest but we recognize it is their right to do so.”

Congressional reaction was swift in coming.  “At a time when our economy is hurting and good-paying aerospace jobs are critical to our recovery, this decision is great news for the skilled workers of Everett and the thousands of suppliers across the country who will help build this critical tanker for our Air Force,” said Washington Sen. Patty Murray. “This decision is a major victory for the American workers, the American aerospace industry and America’s military.   And it is consistent with the President’s own call to ‘out-innovate’ and ‘out-build’ the rest of the world. Even when competing against an illegally subsidized foreign competitor, Boeing’s skilled workforce proved that they have the know-how and the product that can best serve our military.  And it is finally time to get this Boeing tanker into the hands of our men and women in uniform.”

The leaders of the House Armed Services Committee issued a temperate statement. “We look forward to receiving more information from the Air Force as we review their decision-making processes. The seapower and projection forces subcommittee will hold a hearing on this issue as soon as enough information is publicly available,” said the statement by Reps. Buck” McKeon, his ranking member Adam Smith, the chair of the seapower and projection forces subcommittee Todd Akin, and his ranking member. Mike McIntyre.

Join the Conversation

Ugh! I hate still having to pay those lazy union workers.

I’d like to know if Boeing thought about the Air Evac capabilities of the plane. Probably not so that means we’ll have to spend another billion to reconfigure.

This is great news for the U.S.A. today. The DoD made the right decision for the future of America’s warfighters and for the U.S. economy.

I now hope that Americans will now take the opportunity to discuss the importance of a national industrial policy to help stop the serious erosion of U.S. R&D, and U.S. industry which includes America’s defense support industrial base.

This is an awesome day for America and the U.S. military.

U.S.A., All The WAY!!!

Best regards to all.

JMN

Boeing pulled out all the politcal stops on this one to makes sure our warfighters got second best.

Bailing out an obsolete production line — way to go for industrial policy.

Ya gotta wonder — did Boeing finally come down far enough on price to get the win?
Did they take their union buddies to the woodshed and work out a deal to cut labor costs?

And: Will Airbus — after the requisite extensive theatrical protests — walk away with a secret grin for sticky Boeing with a low profit turkey? They avoid building a whole new plant just when demand is going soft back home. And to be sure, they’ll be back for other bids.

Correction: That should read:
Will Airbus — after the requisite extensive theatrical protests — walk away with a secret grin for sticking Boeing with a low profit turkey?

Behind all the tiffs over gear, capabilities and capacities, this has really been a fight over labor costs: Boeing with highest cost union labor in a fully depreciated plant vs. Airbus with new-hire low cost labor in a new build greenfield plant designed for efficiency.

I’m sure we’ll see some F-35 orders cancelled in favor of aircraft built by companies in Europe! This will probably be the tip of the iceberg.

Several years back, it was announced that Airbus bid around $12.5B for the first 68 aircraft while Boeing bid $15B+. Because a DoD undersecretary announced these money figures and Airbus had to get within 1% on price this time to evaluate other criteria, Boeing simply had to underbid Airbus original $12B or so price. Boeing had this information, augmented by IFARA values becoming available to both allowing their use in the clearly stated mathematical formula of how much value IFARA would subtract from the Airbus bid this time.

Airbus has grounds for a protest based on DoD and Air Force mistakes in providing money and IFARA figures that assisted the low bidder. A swag is that Boeing bid around $12B for the first 68 aircraft, which when swags to a second batch of 68 at $11B and a final 43 aircraft at $7B yielding the $30B price that was announced for the 179 KC-X aircraft.

imagine if all the world making similar action, USA didn’t exist.
Europe need cut f-35, f-18 and others american planes, for say: The airplane market don’t go in only one way

What’s the problem? USA don’t have buy the better plane, nothing more.
That’s not the american capitalism (the better win) but that’s protectionism.

I think this choice prove to many country, the american necessity to was number one every where
This choice make one good contract to boeing, but i’ms sure they (USA) can lose foreign contracts in the future.

Workers in Italy and Japan were ecstatic at the news that the DoD had decided to preserve domestic jobs instead of enriching foreign suppliers.

Workers in Alabama were not so happy.

Of course not. Boeing will just build the first dozen or so airframes, ask for double the original amount of money, and blame it all on “requirements creep”.

Does it really make sense to by the 1-ton truck when your spec says you need a 1/2 ton?

You spout off about the 330 as if it answers all questions.

How about 60 years hard experience in supporting the US Warfighter versus less than 10 years experience with no hard experience in success in the US battlespace?

Not to mention the Buy American Act… American companies, building for the American soldier…

America wins. Go Boeing!!!

Milman

Would you go into a car lot today and tell them you want a new 1971 Ford Pinto? This is basically what the USAF is doing by going with a obsolete 767 airframe.

The part of America that is Boeing wins, everyone else gets to pay for second best.

That obsolete airframe will be still flying high in 50 years, The same can not be said of Airbus Products.

Looks like the first 767 was in 1981, not 1971, and the 330 in 1987?

Go Boeing!!!

Now, Boeing will have to choose between producing and delivering these tankers “on time and budget” and delivering their commercial aircraft to their myriad customer base “on time and at the contracted price.”

Boeing’s win on the tanker project can well mean more Airbus orders at the expense of Boeing’s more profitable commercial line.

edging ahead? so you are telling me frances 8 KC-330’s are goin to provide more capability than americans 180 KC-767?

See…thats where the crux of the issue is. The truth is that the american defense market is about 50% of the total WORLD defense market. The U.S. has a buying power that no other country has when it comes to defense. When France buys 10 strategic airlifters, the U.S. buys 200. U.S. defense contractors arent really losing out not being able to compete in western european markets because those markets all together don’t equal the size of the U.S. market. So go ahead, cut F-35 and F-18 orders.….its not goin to make a huge difference– of the 3,000 JSF fighters that are on order– the U.S. is procuring 2500. Of the 550 some-odd F-18 orders the U.S. is buying 515.

The u.s. is able to develop its own domestic systems for most missions because of this buying power. The u.s. will buy so many that it makes it profitable. Its hard for spain to develop an indigenous peice of hardware if its total run is only going to be 100 units but its quite easy for the u.s. when its total unit run is going to be 1000.

not its not. the airframe design may be 30 years old but thats really it. Its avionics are going to be modern, its engines are going to be modern its refueling system is going to be modern. Its more like buying a truck thats based on a proven chasis thats been around for the last 30 years.

Why is it 2nd best? There is no need for such a large aircraft. I understand the need if you have a refeuling fleet of only a dozen planes but the U.S. has a fleett of close to 500. With the 767 new gen tanker we won’t have to be expandig our hangers and facilities so they could accomodate am A330

Jeez, now we’ll have one brand new tanker for every fighter. It’s only money, who cares?

How do you figure? 767 has its own line, which is largely going to be turned over to the Tanker and some Freight models while commercial passenger carriers move to 787. Hell, they’re producing the Navy’s P-8 on the same (union) line as the commercial 737s without any trouble.

Fitzwilly,

Bombers, transports, attack, elint, and recon aircraft also need refueling. I’m just saying.

And for the record, I think both the EADS and the Boeing offerings are good aircraft, and I wouldn’t be surprised if EADS wins the KC-10 replacement contract that will be awarded in another 5–8 years.

LOL…

Imagine if you had any clue what you were talking about…

Actually, the KC-767NG is a newer & more advanced aircraft than the KC-30.

“Boeing wins in a suprise” What a joke. This whole thing was completely rigged from the get go. Do none of you recall former Boeing CFO Mike Sears pleading guilty for conspiring with the top procurement officer of the Air Force to rig the tanker bid back in 2003? So here they come back again, promising this time it’s a fair competition.

It’s not.
We get a stinking monopoly thats corrupt to boot, the defense industry is so consolidated there is no other bidder, other than Boeing, so I don’t see how this is a victory. A european bidder was a non-starter, a straw man to make it appear to be a competitor. no politician would dare give it to them. And all these jobs? Hiring union workers to collect government tax dollars is a poor way to create jobs. It’s just tax money from other americans. And when they go over budget, which they will, we will have no choice but to keep paying, because we need the tankers.
The politics of this stinks.

You mean the workers representing the >85% US & <15% non-US KC-767NG workshare were ecstatic while the workers representing the <58% US & >42% non-US KC-30 workshare were not…

No, every gets to pay for the best. Something the USAF (AMC in particular) knew (& made clear) almost a decade ago.

Its just the beginning of the replacement of us air force tankers. there are still more tankers that need to be replaced. probably the KC-Y or the KC-Z competition will pick the EADS tanker if they ever start.

Perhaps you should do some more research into the previous competitions (BOTH OF THEM)…

Try reading the RFP…

The USAF isn’t buying an inferior product. It is buying a superior product. One that MUCH more closely matches what it wants/needs.

I DIDNT KNOW THAT THERE WERE SOMANY ANTI AMERICANS ON THE WEB, THIS COUNTRY NEEDS THE JOBS, AND TO SEND THEM TO ANOTHER COUNTRY IS SURELY AGIN THE AMERICAN WORKER, I AM A KOREAN WAR VET, AND BELIEVE IN MY COUNTRY,

No I hope that all EU countries will review the JSF, APACHE and other contracts taking into account less favorable Euro/USD exchange rates and revised requirements to cancel their plans to buy JSF, Apache etc and by Eurofighter and Eurocopter etc. In the end the EU buys more military equipment from the US than vise versa. US claims free market, but the choice for Boeing seems to be a rigged process. Lessons learned, USA will not not buy from Europe, even if it deals with a low-tech product as this tanker plain therefore Europe should NOT buy from USA

Actually the KC-Y (KC-10 replacement) contract is not expected until 2020–2024.

Yes a slew of minor changes that provide ample scope for jacking up the price. But you don’t see anyone else fooled — DoD will be the only customer for the 767 from now on.

Will GE demand an alternate engine?

We were supposed to have a bunch of foreign F-35 orders by now (example-LM’s Operation: Lightning Strike). Where are they?

I hate paying for whining Europeans,

“EADS remains part-owned by Spanish and French governments and by proxies for the German government and politicians there have taken a close interest in the programme.“
http://​www​.ft​.com/​c​m​s​/​s​/​0​/​7​7​6​a​6​7​3​6​-​4​0​6​3​-​1​1​e​0​-​9​140

Same could be said of the Euros. “We have a foothold in the US market and they are dependent on our stuff and have no choice but to accept our delays.”

France and Spain (and sometimes) Germany don’t buy our stuff anyways. They have to give welfare to their local producers also.

NATO? You mean how they risk their lives daily in Afghanistan (except for the actually fighting GCN Anglos).

NATO: need Americans to Operate

Looks like Boeing went with the Lockheed playbook — promise them any specification at any price and then jack up the prices and lower the specs later when they are committed. The DoD with a string of failed projects behind it fell for it again.

For EADS they are better off turning to China now. The American market is so obviously corrupt that even an obvious winner cant make it. Pressure to lift the EU arms embargo on China will now have much added weight. Sarkozy just has to read out congresses glee at the bailout jobs and the last resistance will crumble. Over the pacific the differences between the two tankers shines out and Boeing just handed the Chinese a 150% force multiplier that US warfighters could well come to bitterly regret.

We’ve seen for some time now that the new American defense contractor strategy is to deliver less and cost more. So it shouldn’t come as any surprise. The contract is very much business as usual. The 767AT will of course be late and way over budget — that’s is a given that everyone expects. Boeing has packed in a lot of scope for cost growth not least if which being the shutdown (because nobody is buying them anymore) and then restart of the 767 production line if they can string it out long enough.

“Surprising” “unexpected” “shocking” are some of what people are saying — not really, more business as usual, just making sure America’s warfighters get second best at premium prices. Its the future.

Yea look up: Boeing, corruption, jail time.

Your 100% right on Mr.Siegel. America needs to protect what’s left of her industrial base.

50 thousand U.S. factories have either shutdown or gone oversea’s since the year 2000. More recently American R&D has been leaving too.

Giving away this USAF air tanker contract would have been totally insane.

By the way Mr Siegal, thank you for serving in the U.S. miltary.

JMN

Besides, tankers are not used for Air Evac. C-130, C-17 and C-5 are our Air Evac aircraft.

Give Boeing a call Bernard I’m sure they can find a job for you hammering aluminium or something, even though you cant find the caps lock key.

Happy Oblat-bouncing-off-the-walls day!

Except that the Chinese don’t train in aerial refueling, and don’t seem to have an institutional interest.

But who’s keeping track, amirite?

Oblat is disciplined. He never lets facts get in the way of a good sensationalist tangent.

Let’s see.. England is drawing down forces, marking the end of Europe’s (small) self-sustainable expeditionary warfare capability. Multiple Eurozone countries in financial chaos. Increased Russian bomber traffic along European borders. Russian land forces operating virtually unopposed in Georgia just years ago.

Yeah, I don’t think that they’re going to bite the hand that feeds them. Sorry.

Nope.
http://​farm3​.static​.flickr​.com/​2​4​9​1​/​3​9​7​5​4​8​7​5​1​1​_65

Having a handful of tankers =/= a aerial refueling capability. Look it up.

Scratch that.. I can’t even tell what those are, and why it’s relevant.

Eurofighter?

Says the guy who claims the Chinese don’t have tankers. :-)

Yep we all know people buy tankers for the in-flight catering that they come with.

Cant tell the difference between a J10 and a Eurofighter — cant recognize a bison derivative. Dont worry about it Early by the time you catch up it will be J20s being refueled by A330Ts while the USAF wonders how it ended up with so many F35s at bingo over the pacific.

If you were going to design a force most not suited to a fight in the pacific you’d have to pick the short legged F35 and back it up with an obsolete tanker fleet.

In 2017 I want to see those 18 planes on time and under budget, if not then Ash Carter and Bill Lynn need to be given silver bracelets and a new cell in NC with Bernie Madoff…cause Boeing just made off with the deal of the new century

I hope everyone on this site agrees with that too, oh yeah let’s not forget Norm Dicks too…he will look real good too…

Not as a primary role, no. But KC-135’s and KC-10’s are, in fact, used for aerovac missions.

Back in the day the Air Force expanded the cargo/personnel transport/aerovac role of the KC-135 from being a minor role into a fully secondary mission role, to relieve the overworked C-141’s. The C-17’s have been looking to suffer the same fate as the early-retired C-141’s, hence the KC-10’s seeing their role expanded exactly the same way as the KC-135: history repeated itself.

KC-10’s and KC-135’s generally fulfill the cargo/personnel transport/aerovac roles when they are flying into and out of the theater for their deployment rotations.

Logistics is one of the most critical aspects to sustaining combat operations, and KC-10’s and KC-135’s offer much needed flexibility and time efficiency with our air transportation system.

Article: “Modification allows KC-135 to carry more critical patients“
http://​www​.931arg​.afrc​.af​.mil/​n​e​w​s​/​s​t​o​r​y​.​a​s​p​?​i​d=1

I also forgot to mention that there has been at least one instance that I know of where a KC-10 was diverted in the middle of it’s tanker mission to be used for an critical patient aerovac mission. I doubt that was the first of it’s kind, nor would it be the last.

Just a minor point. At the current exchange rate of $1.38 to the Euro now, US labor is cheaper. When the exchange rate was a ridiculous $0.80 per euro, Airbus was cheaper. At around $1.10–1.20 per euro, everything is pretty even. Maybe no one paid attention to the reason why Airbus wanted a US assembly line for the A330 in the first place.

Please,
Lets see, A400, awarded after a fair and open competition. Oh no, wait, it was a single source award to Airbus. Export Orders?
Rafale and Typhoon. Oh yeah, those are the Airbus partner nations. Outside the UK, which is also a F-35 partner, no F-35 sales to any of those nations. Export orders from head to head competition?
KC-45. Lets see, Britian bought A330 based tankers (no booms). Airbus partner.

The KC-X requirements favored a smaller plane because that was what the USAF wanted. The smaller plane won, what a surprise.

Ooh, a max fuel ofload at max distance lead. This awesome capability will mean that European strategic bombers, oh wait…, I mean European strategic airlifters… oh wait. never mind.

So lets see, no EU nation, outside the Airbus partners, has much input into the A330. I would be willing to bet that the US has a higher percentage of the value of a A330 than probably the entirety of the EU nations outside of the Airbus partner nations. So, since most of Europe doesn’t benefit from Airbus, exactly how much military gear does France, Germany, Spain, and Britian buy from the US? Outside the stuff that the US is the only nation that produces that is.

Since a KC-10 can carry more, further than a A330 based tanker, what’s your point. The neat thing about having three types of tankers (KC46/KC135, KC10, and KC130) is you can send what makes sense.

wait if boeing can give his low price tanker without any more money.

I suppose the cheaper aircraft won which is probably a good thing in these difficult times. I’m certain that the 767 will do a good job and for the later contracts maybe we’ll see a 787 offered.

I just hope that Boeing can build this new generation aircraft for the money they’re getting, it is after all a fixed price contract. A thing that worries me is that Airbus knows exactly how much it costs to build their plane as its building them as we speak. Boeing’s plane is a drawing on a desk although it is a new version of an old aircraft so lets hope they got the math right.

I seem to remember that the new version of the C130 (J model) was just a new version of an old plane, but wasn’t that late and with unexpected design issues (something to do with icing).

One last thing though; both aircraft would have benefited the economy by creating (Airbus) or keeping (Boeing) around 50000 jobs.

A400 is a wonderful airplane. US definitely needs to buy some. Don’t let this one contract award sour relations between US and Europe. JSF can’t be saved, time to move on.

Oooh, gee: Boeing pledges “on time, and on budget”.
Pledges, but not necessarily promises?

Question now remains to be seen,
what punishments is Boeing willing to accept when this still-vaporware program
(have they flown one single pre-production model yet?)
turns into another over-budget, late-to-deliver-as-“pledged” program like how LM is milking the F-35?

Oh wait, they won now. In the US, a victory means the contractor is now no longer bound to actually adhere to the selling points that won them the contract.

All hail Boeing.
Someone get back to me after every last plane they’re offering is delivered on time, and on budget, just as they “pledged”.

As long as this contract has taken, why didn’t they just go like the LCS, and do a split buy, to replace, over a longer period, both the KC-135 AND the aging KC-10s?
That would’ve been a win-win for all, as it would’ve created more jobs over a longer period.

Good luck with this decision, Air Force.

Sounds to me some folks here need to read up on Airbus. They fall apart…period!
I will NEVER ever get on an AB product, and I dont wont my tax money going to the EC.

Sounds to me some folks here need to read up on Airbus. They fall apart…period!__I will NEVER ever get on an AB product, and I don’t want my tax money going to the EC.

Well, maybe you are being a little harsh. EU countries should cancel out of JSF, actually so should the US. Double the promised price, way late.
The Boeing plane does offer fuel savings over the life of the aircraft.
US should buy, under license, A400, superior transport to anything the US has.
We can work together, don’t let one contract award upset you.

Why when we stopped ordering the C-17? We already have the C-130 why do we need something in between that and the C-17.

LMAO!

The AirBus was far superior in many ways. We as Americans Lost due to politics!

Would you rather have your taxes pay for lazy European union workers or American workers? Not all of the tanker workers will be union.

Seems like we have alot of UH-72’s flying around the US, as well as Coast Guard helicopters and patrol planes with European name plates. I don’t believe that EU countries will buy aircraft from the US when they have domestically built aircraft which meet the specs and price requirements, and neither should we.

The Air Bus A330 was NOT superior in many ways. It was bigger. Bigger is not always better. Yes, It carries more fuel. Yes, it carries more cargo. But the Air Force does not need a behemouth. If it did, why not buy a 747 or a 380? Because bigger in not better, just bigger. The bigger the airplane, the more it costs us taxpayers to operate. Here’s a quote from the DOD.
“The Airbus plane burns over one ton more of fuel per flight hour than the Boeing plane. Multiply that by 40 years and that’s a lot of money,”

Boeing protested the won original award because the AIr Force asked for a mis sized, tanker. That is what they need. Air Bus did not have one to offer so they offered the 330. And the original award group decided “Bigger is better”. They ignored their own criteria. Bottom line is, yes, it is bigger, no is is not more efficient. Bigger is NOT better, efficient is better.

We have been buying EU aircraft for some time; many UH-72’s and Coast Guard heicopters and patrol planes with EU namplates are in service here. Further, I doubt if EU countries will buy imported aircraft when there are domestically designed and produced models which meet specs and price requirements, and neither should we.

because the c-130 would be remplaced with one plane between one c-17 and one c-130, one tactical plane who can carry vehicule who was used today.
Can you land one c-17 in one soft field and in one small distance? no, the c-130 can , but he can’t carry enormous vehicule.The A400M can
Make one search and you see US envisaged c-130 remplacement

I agree! Keep the full production in the USA and not in a heavily subsidised european country! Perhaps Australia’s problems with the Airbus Tanker and the problems with break away tests helped the decision. Being a KC-135 mechanic, I know that this is critical in aerial refueling. Our country is in trouble and needs the jobs. Boeing is a proven product as well as the Boeing 767 tankers flying with Japan and Italy gave Boeing experience. Lets not forget the KC-135R which has been serving this great nation for over 50 years. I think Boeing is up to the task.

Except the A400M can’t carry something as heavy as the Abrams main battle tank, so it couldn’t replace the C-17A.

Also the C-17A has excellent STOL capabilities, yet these are rarely used presumably due to maintenance related reasons.

Spain use AV8B, C130 and FA 18. France use C130 and KC135, AWACS, E2 hawkeye. Germany use the Phantom

As former ANG and someone who saw a lot of minefields in this issue,this sudden turn of events may despite my former opinions, actually be good for the Air Force with a solid supply line,proven delivery record and ailing national labor market, which in a twist of fate, may now actually benefit,at least in thi case the USAF.Based on direct knowledge ‚personnel moves and strong reforms both inside and outside the service may theoreticly allow the scheduled delivery of tankers that are affordable,and this time,ones that can actually fly.There is no doubt an overseas manufacturer would have a greater tendency and temptation to drag their feet on delivery and cost overruns given even the now global harsh economy.

SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF ANTI-AMERICAN MUSLUM E-MAILERS AT WORK !! GO BOEING !! “NAM” VET BIG RED ONE MEDIC

The NextGen tanker is still a paper airplane. No contract has been signed. No protest has been filed. Perhaps a year from now, both will have occurred. I personally will wait and see.
The C-17 is an example of a contest that was won by Boeing/McD. One year later Lockheed was asked to bid (unsolicited) for 50 more C-5’s; the USAF found out that the C-17 could not be delivered anywhere near the promised aschedule. Lockheed built all 50 and was winding down the production line when the first C-17 was rolled out. Over the years the AF has thrown billions of dollars at the C-17 to make it work. I wonder what the firnal costs were for the first 50 of that airlfter, compared with the C-5.
Fortunately the 767 exists as does the production line. It should be a matter of throwing the tanker mod kit on the jet. It should be done while in production rather than as a flight line mod which is a much costlier effort. We’ll see which way Boeing goes.

I’ve actually been in favor of the Next Generation Bomber for a while. Why are you so bitter?

Fool. This isn’t about “americanism”. It’s about the best product at the best price, which is the function of a free market. As soon as the free market is short circuited by protectionism, you get inferior products at higher costs. BASIC ECON 101 and countless examples prove this.

SIMPLE QUESTION, and SIMPLE MATH:
How many NEW jobs are added when a company wins a contract to build aircraft on an existing line ?
How many NEW jobs are added when a company invests in building a NEW manufacturing plant and NEW assembly line in the U.S ?

You bought into the rhetoric instead of simple math. This country would be much less than what it is today without Foreign Investment in the US. Todays decision just drove money and jobs away from the US.

Yes, I am a U.S. Vet too.

They finally took into account the billions of dollars in construction cost too handle the much larger A330 at bases, hangers, parking ramps ‚POL refuel points etc.

Small point; BAE systems (Britain) no longer owns any part of Airbus. They sold it all to EADS.

It can carry the Abrams. The A400 can carry full size tanks, it has the fuel efficiency of a turboprop, is twice the size of the C130, and costs about the same as a C130.

Ah… spoken as only someone with zero working knowledge of the aviation industry could.

Wow, what a Patriot.…

If the Air Force wants to do with the KC-46 airframe the same things it did with the KC-135 airframe, such as strategic reconnaissance, airborne surveillance, C3, etc, it makes sense to have a more modestly sized airframe. The A330 is a fine airplane but it is just too big for a general purpose tanker, not to mention all those other jobs. In the end using one common airframe for a variety of missions will save money.

As a Taxpayer, I’m glad my money is not being sent off to EADS for something that the US is clearly capable of providing itself in a 1st class manner.

That said, is DoD acquisition excellence at an all time low? Programs that are on budget and schedule are the exception. This program has had how many starts and stops? How can we keep going with major programs that double in cost and are years behind in schedule? Hopefully the Air Force really did learn lessons, as they said they did, but I not sure that FFP development is the answer either (A-12 anyone?).

Silly Boeing talking points. The 330 isn’t a behemoth it’s one of the most popular aircraft around supported by any airport.

The difference is performance though is substantial, 50% better at typical combat delivery station.

Yea the last hing you want with airborne surveillance is persistence right ?

The air force knows it has been forced to buy a dud, that is why it is evaluating anything but the 767 as the next JSTARS.

To all the haters out there. Can you please list all the “superior” qualities of the EADS tanker submission?
Also, the Eurofighter and Copter look very pretty but they are simply inferior products when compared to American warcraft. That’s why countries purchase them.

You need to read the “buy American” act.

Protectionism only protects inferior products. ECON 101
Just ask Detroit.….. It wasn’t until the competition in the market forced them to build better products.

Buy products because they are better, not simply because where they are made.

Must make flying in the U.S. interesting for you???

Negative. It can carry some 41 tons of stuff. The Abrams and many Western main battle tanks are some 60+ tons.

It may have been nice to have if we continued with the FCS vehicles which the A400M could carry, but a military like ours still needs heavy lifters like the C-17A and C-5M.

Look at the British, they plan to buy the A400M but they leased a handful of C-17As in the interim and decided to keep them even after they get all of their A400Ms. The A400M is indeed more fuel efficient and better suited to some missions but there are times you need that extra payload capacity. Thus a mix of transports is a good thing.

So if are Japanese cars, German engineering products, Belgian chocolates, and French wines also inferior because they are also subsidized and protected by their home governments?

So are Japanese cars, German engineering products, Belgian chocolates, and French wines also inferior because they are also subsidized and protected by their home governments?

Fixed, DanS

and the a330 is a little small in terms of the fuel capacity. 777 is better probably.

Let the market decide. That’s the point. Subsidized or not, says nothing about their quality. Besides there are plenty of American DoD suppliers who are “subsidized” too. There are Billions of $ in DoD spent every year on sole source contracts and competition isn’t allowed to happen. THAT IS A SUBSIDY. make no mistake. That’s why the question of subsidies is irrelevant and shouldn’t enter into the discussion. It is everyones responsibility in a free market economy to buy the BEST product for the money… period.

it’s low-risk for a start.

A point that everyone seems to miss is that this is a Firm-fixed price plus incentive contract. Any cost over-runs are no longer billable to the government. Regardless of who wins its no longer at the risk of the tax payer. The company that CANNOT deliver after winning, not only risks losing the contract, but under-bid and win a contract and the entire company is at risk. Good luck to Boeing, I hope they left themselves a little margin or they could be running in the red very quickly.

To all the Industry haters out there, at least now Industry has to put up, or shut up. What about DoD?

True, but the Boeing 767 variant has a proven flight structure and the only true risk is the bladder retrofit and the new spiffy gamers cockpit.

http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​A​i​r​b​u​s​_​A​4​00M
payload = 82000 lbs. But I agree with everything else you say. C17 is good, we could use A400 also. No more C130s please.

That was funny, thanks for the laugh.

They will just wait for the Pratt engine to fail, then just swoop in and save the day as usual.

E.A.D.S. definitively needs to develop a less honest and more Boeing-like mindset. The U.S.A. aren’t Europe. Superior products and lower prices alone ( = professional competence, objective selection criteria, fair decisions), EVEN THE PROMISE OF BUILDING NEW FACTORIES THERE , while Boeing outsources all its planes to Communist China (its KC-767s, too?), only get you covered with contempt, ingratitude and defeat by the U.S. Americans. Holy European ingenuity…

On second thought: E.A.D.S., don’t appeal this transvestite verdict, get out of the U.S.A. and never go back there again!

Good Morning Folks,

All kinds of comments above, that go from serious, a few, to rather stupid the majority.

The only calculation I don’t see in the above, is how much per airplane has Boeing over the past 15 years spent on lobbying Congress, the DoD and full page ads in newspaper to sell the Boeing built tanker to the American people?

Well into the millions of dollar I would suppose. Is this the best use of defense money we can find?

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Wow, this logical, non-emotional, non-sour grapes argument convinced me that the US should have went with EADS the whole time.

“Commy China”, monsieur red scare, such an un-nuanced term from a sophisticated Frenchman. Keep selling to shady countries buddy. You still owe us about $10 billion for direct and indirect defense subsidies during the Cold War and a couple hundred thousand lives for the two world wars, we paid off the debt for Lafayette a long time ago. Maybe the much hyped European Expeditionary Force could actually do something sometime and perhaps buy new EADS European igenuity if they weren’t busy playing an economic shell game with the PIIGS and such.

The British are going to keep A400 and C17, sell their C130s. Sounds like a plan.

Uh, how is money spent by Boeing (a private, for-profit corporation) on lobbying taken from the defense budget?

I’m not aware of any falling apart. I do remember a Boeing 737 losing its roof over Hawaii though

I think the main advantage Airbus had was its huge fuel tanks which mean it doesn’t need extra tanks in the fuselage. This means it can carry a full load of passengers or freight as well as the fuel. I suspect the 767 will have extra tanks fitted. Small advantage, but i do agree with asdf, it is a lower risk.

Boeing outlines how the price will be jacked up:

“Production and flight-testing will be concurrent, says Jean Chamberlin, vice president of Boeing’s tanker program; if technical problems arise in flight-test, fixes may have to be retrofitted onto the aircraft. Although a different design, Boeing experienced substantial flight-test problems with its Italian 767-based tanker.”

Boing is losing contracts all over the place, they need a cash cow like the JSF disaster is for Lockheed. So they are playing the same games — front load the project, provide plenty of scope for cost growth and hold the American taxpayer to ransom when 5 years down the track they want to rebase the entire account.

No wonder Cater and friends looked like they were announcing the death of a close relative at the press conference.

I think we’ll lose F35 orders because of the cost of the darn thing. How can a new plane with new parts cost 40% more to operate than the 30 year old ones its replacing. SecDef should have got a grip on that program years ago. Any aircraft with internal bays can’t be multi role enough for these cash strapped times. Can you launch rockets from a bay? Can it launch an anti ship missile? Anti radiation missile? I hope it can for what we’re paying.

You think it’s a donation to the nation Early ?

Or maybe they will make sure they get it back in the tanker profits.

I thought EADS won the first round?

Well, how many jobs are kept by keeping the production line open?

A400 looks kinda small. How does it compare with the C-5/17?

There is a big push in the EU now to drop sanctions on China in 2011. With the US signaling that it isn’t open to investment from Europe in such an open and clear way there will a lot of European companies saying that why are we in effect subsidizing the American aerospace industry by limiting our sales to China?

“Over the pacific the differences between the two tankers shines out and Boeing just handed the Chinese a 150% force multiplier that US warfighters could well come to bitterly regret.”

Seems like we are always coming up against French weapons, but don’t really remeber any regrets, maybe even thankfulness.

TROJ — So delay the inevitable? Thats not called job creation. That’s called subsidizing.…..

A point that everyone seems to miss is that this is a Firm-fixed price plus incentive contract. Any cost over-runs are no longer billable to the government. Regardless of who wins its no longer at the risk of the tax payer. The company that CANNOT deliver after winning, not only risks losing the contract, but under-bid and win a contract and the entire company is at risk. Good luck to Boeing, I hope they left themselves a little margin or they could be running in the red very quickly.

I thougt EADS won the first round?

What a dork.

After 9–11 an Airbus out of New York lost its vertical tail. That was at least the second occurance of that type on an Airbus product. Bad engineering for sure.

And I seem to recall an Airbus landing on the Hudson River not too long ago, and staying afloat long enough for everyone to get out alive.

ha ha ha ha ha ha !

You must be new here.

While at a major American subcontractor for Boeing, I worked on proposals for the 757/767 series when the programs were just starting up, and we were amazed how much of the work for stuffed structure went to Fuji Heavy Industries, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Heavy Industries. Boeing has implicitly justified its preference for overseas suppliers by calculations of market capture, and explicitly justified it though a globalized corporate culture. They are not now, and have not been an American company for a very long time.

Shutting down a production for any aircraft (except maybe the C-130 it seems) is “inevitable”.

Fair point Engineer Randy, I remember that now.

Yes, they do make good boats. LOL

More fuel consumption, bigger footprint on the tarmac, needs new hangars .……

Ummm, the Air Force uses Air Force Bases mostly, not airports.

My, my, we’re sensitive about this aren’t we? It’s fun to revisit these hallowed pages and note the diversity of totally absurd opinions (along with the sound ones) including dear old BS and his stabs at lobbyists and “stupid” readers in general. He’s correct of course, as always. I think he even predicted Boeing would win. Go Byron.

Well, it’s over, gol durn it! Best we move on dot org or just move on huh? Let’s divert our collective concern to Crusading Freedom Fighting educators (they say) trying to protect their “rights” to entitlements, free stuff, collective barganing (as opposed to lobbying) and other people’s money in return for an economy class student output. On Wisconsin.

Does that also take into account the fix needed on the main wing spar for the C-5? What about the fact that the C-5 could never land at the less than pristine airfields like it was supposed to do in the original specification? All aircraft are compromises. Some of the compromises involve the aircraft and others involve the politicians in the districts where the aircraft are built.

“promise them any specification at any price and then jack up the prices and lower the specs later when they are committed.”

Nope, this is a fixed price contract this time around. If Boeing can’t deliver what they promised at the price promised on time, Boeing will have to eat the profit and delay penalty.

Those of you saying Airbus tanker is superior that Boeing one is like saying F150 pickup is better then Ranger. Sure, F150 can carry more passenger, haul more and tow more then Ranger, does it make it it superior even if you get it at the same prices as the Ranger?
I just need to haul small stuff, why waste gas driving around with full size pickup for next 40 years that won’t fit into some of parking spots? not to mention I have to rebuild my garage to fit the truck.
Air Force clearly stated we need “mid size” tankers not “large/full size” tanker. Boeing also considered offering 777 which is far superior then A330 but figured 767 was just the right size for our need. Airbus simply didn’t have the right sized plane for the requirement.

Plus, A330 tanker is already flying but so is 767. Except that NextGen 767 will have next generation boom which will be superior then current generation booms on both A330 and 767 tanker. Plus it will have all new glass cockpit and avionics based on latest 787 system. So it will be a newer plane then then current A330 and 767 tanker.

When the EU props up Grece, Ireland, Spain and the multitude of other failing finances on that side of the pond, there will not be any money left for anything other than toothpaste.

These are new planes with the latest avionics. That’s all that matters.
This is not fighter or attack air frame there just aren’t that many different ways to build one.
And the Air Force would have been irresponsible if they didn’t pick the plan that used this
much less fuel then the EADS proposal.

China will just reverse engineer and sell them like they did the Sukhoi-33.

yes tiny little things they are too. The fuel hoses are too short !

Boeing talking points about how better is worse is just laughable and they know it. They are refusing to release details of the winning bid so that it can be checked.

A tanker isn’t an executive jet it’s job is to haul lots of fuel and remain on station for as long as possible not to
“haul small stuff”.

But,
has Boeing even actually flown a KC-46 boom yet, installed on another aircraft if solely to prove the new “NextGen” boom actually works, in reality,
not just on MS Flight Sim 2015?

As for avionics based on the 787,…yeah, Boeing hasn’t delivered that aircraft on time to its original schedule, either…(or was that just another one of those “pledge” things, and not an outright contractual business agreement where Boeing was actually expected to meet deadlines?)

Now they’re going to make a hybrid out of parts wholly unproven to even work together so far?

Sad days ahead for the USAF,.…

Boeing is currently flying 787 to an additional rework factory in Texas because the factory is clogged with half finished aircraft, parts shortages and rework jobs — as changes become apparent due to flight testing.

Meanwhile they cant tell customers when they are going to get their aircraft because they are diverting orders to testing aircraft.

I don’t get it. How would landing the US contract keep EADS from pursuing other market opportunities?The EADS team would compete for the PRC contract anyway — it’s not an argument to give a US contract to a foreign consortium whose interests aren’t aligned with ours.

No, Sears & Druyun unethical conduct (which BOEING discovered & revealed and fired BOTH for).

No, Boeing won the 1st round in 2002.

Just how was the Airbus superior in ANY way. Bigger DOES NOT mean better…

The 330–200 is larger (footprint) & heavier (ACN) than all USF aircraft except for the C-5 & a handful of 747 platforms.

The KC-767NG significantly exceeds the typical combat delivery station…and it is the number of tankers that you can operate in theater that what is most important, NOT how much fuel each tanker can theoretically deliver.

The EADS KC-X is still a paper airplane.

How is it lower risk than the KC-767NG?

Boeing has been much more honest than EADS throughout. Airbus aircraft are not superior to Boeing aircraft & Airbus is able to sell at a lower profit margin due to unfair business practices. Boeing only “outsources” (outside the US) ~30% of the 767 airframe manufacturing but manufacture 100% itself if needed.

~70% of the 767 is STILL manufactured in the US.

Boeing’s lobbying budget comes from Boeing, not the defense budget. We don’t pay the car dealerships advertising costs to advertise to us.

You completely missed the point of his argument.

The USAF called for a mid-sized tanker, not a large-sized tanker, because a larger variety and number of airbases can accommodate them. It costs extra to invest into larger facilities and extending parking ramps to accommodate large-sized aircraft.… otherwise the aircraft has less mission flexibility having to operate from farther away air bases more often. Not to mention large-sized aircraft means you can fit fewer of them, meaning fewer aircraft available. It’s better to have 16 mid-sized aircraft than 11 large-sized aircraft… more aircraft means greater mission flexibility if one aircraft is grounded for maintenance, or another aircraft needs to be called upon for an emergency tanker mission or aerovac mission.

“haul small stuff”

Personnel/cargo/aerovac transport is a secondary mission of the tanker fleet.

Back in the day the Air Force expanded the cargo/personnel transport/aerovac role of the KC-135 from being a minor role into a fully secondary mission role, to relieve the overworked C-141’s. The C-17’s have been looking to suffer the same fate as the early-retired C-141’s, hence the KC-10’s seeing their role expanded exactly the same way as the KC-135: history repeated itself.

KC-10’s and KC-135’s generally fulfill the cargo/personnel transport/aerovac roles when they are flying into and out of the theater for their deployment rotations.

Logistics is one of the most critical aspects to sustaining combat operations, and KC-10’s and KC-135’s offer much needed flexibility and time efficiency with our air transportation system.

Article: “Modification allows KC-135 to carry more critical patients” http://​www​.931arg​.afrc​.af​.mil/​n​e​w​s​/​s​t​o​r​y​.​a​s​p​?​i​d=1

Because the Airbus tanker is in service around the world already so we know it works. The Boeing New gen hasn’t even been built yet. Don’t forget the problems with C130J. That was just a new gen of the H model but had problems.

I don’t know why Boeing didn’t just offer their existing KC767 which is flying and in service. Boeing was always going to win. Northrop Grumman pulled out of the contract because they said there was no way the Airbus could win due to the fact that the competition had been re written to favor a smaller cheaper aircraft.

It is easy to shoot at fish in a barrel and call yourself a fisherman; most of the comments on this blog are from those who have no tanker experience, just loyalty to either Boeing or EADS. I will make it simple. I am a USAF operations planner and KC-10/KC135 Boom Operator. I would like you to understand this tanker issue. Boeing or EADS, whoever we selected, the main selection point was the number of refueling booms in the air for a strike package or airlift deployment. That is the key and always will be. Back in 1996 I planned President Clinton’s visit to Asia. Due to the large airlift requirement, I had to deploy 3 KC-135s to Pago Pago due to the large number of airlifters passing through to Australia. The EADS Tanker would barely fit on the tarmac there if we were tasked to do this mission today. Also, the EADS tanker could not be in three air refueling rendezvous at once. With a total of 245, 00 lbs of fuel capacity (KC-10 350,000lbs) and that includes fuel for him to return to base, he would be fuel offload limited. Now we could send three more EADS tankers down to Pago Pago out of Hawaii, but only one can land there, so you burn up tons of fuel and more assets than are really required, whereby you send three 767 tankers to Pago Pago at around 202,000 pound of fuel per plane and you have a offload capacity of around 420,000 lbs of fuel versus the EADS offload of 200,000lbs……does this make sense? It is more than a European or American thing, it is called force projection and if we mix our tanker fleet with all large aircraft………let’s just say you do not put all your eggs in one basket or large tanker, you need variety. I will be flying one of the aircraft one day, and I hope it will last 50 years like the KC135.

You are ignorant on tanker issues and operational planning. However you are full of political spin!

For OBLAT
Only
Boeing
Love
America
Tanker

Finally a responce that speaks to the nuts and bolts and not to the pie in the sky nationalistic BS. Thanks Boomer.

a lot sock-puppets and pseudonyms out there on the internet these days…

How come Northrop Grumman “won” last time with the larger tanker?

PS I don’t care who builds the darn things, lets just get some new tankers.

Part 1 of 3

Hey whats-your-face, … whats the matter? … afraid to use your own handle?

Hey whats-your-face, you ought be more careful throwing around words like … “fooI” as you do above.

So you say this isn’t about americanism. You say that, “It’s about the best product at the best price, which is the function of a free market.” Well I agree, I think markets are important too. But I think America is more than just a free market idea.

So whats-your-face, do you think that giving a $35 billion dollar national defense contact to the EU is a good free market idea in this economic climate??? Have you seen the latest U.S. trade deficit numbers??? The U.S. trade deficit in 2010 worsened by 33 percent, rising from $375 billion to $498 billion, the largest percentage increase in a decade.

Hey whats-your-face, ever wonder why America is in so much debt to China? From 2000 to 2010, America ran over $6.1 trillion in trade deficits, more than America’s entire economic growth. To finance those 10 years of deficits, America had to borrow $1.553 billion every day.

Part 2 of 3

Hey whats-your-face, in 2010, the U.S. trade deficit in manufactured goods alone rose 27 percent to $416 billion, far exceeding America’s trade deficit in crude oil. The last decade of such deficits helps to explain why American manufacturing has been so devastated and lost over 6 million jobs.

Hey whats-your-face, 50 thousand U.S. factories have shutdown or left America since the year 2000!

Hey whats-your-face, did you know that in the critical items identified as “advanced technology products,” (ATP’s) the United States has been running a very serious trade deficit too, climbing from $16 billion in 2002 to $82 billion in 2010?

My point here is that despite all the propaganda from uninmformed people like you about the virtues of liberal free trade, and exports being the future, the foreigners’ share of the U.S. market is $500 billion more than America’s entire share of the world market. So I ask you, did you account for any of this math in that basic econ 101 lesson that you so wanted to share with the rest of us, … did you whats-your-face???

Part 3 of 3

Hey whats-your-face, do you understand American economic history and the “American System.” Do you fully understand what has happened to America’s economy since 1967’s GATT and 1994’s WTO?????

Hey what’s-your-face, .… were you really comfortable with the idea of handing over a $35 billion dollar national defense contract to the EU at a time where America’s defense industries are so seriously eroding? Did you know that 13 out 16 U.S. defense support industries are currently in decline and now U.S. R&D is packing up and leaving too?

To complicate matters worse, America is now facing 10% unemployment (15 million people), and another 10% underemployment (another 15 million people) which helps to explain why 43 million people in America are now on food stamps. Or is it that everyones lazy except for you?

Only a fool thinks that a great big country like America can be summed up a simple statement like, .… “This isn’t about “americanism”. It’s about the best product at the best price, which is the function of a free market.” Wake up whats-your-face.

Regards, JMN

Appreciate your service but hope both Pago Pago (an unusual anecdotal example) and means of calculating tanker requirements have improved since 1996. Computerized efficiency in planning consolidated flights SHOULD be the norm. Find it hard to believe you cannot fit two KC-30s in the same space as three KC-767. In that case you would have 404K of offload from two planes burning a combined 3.8k gal/hr versus 3 767s offloading 420K burning a combined 4.5K gals/hr. Which is more efficient?

Second, for most Pacific missions, would you not admit that it would make more sense for KC-30s to fly longer legs and top of KC-767 staying on station? Would you not acknowledge that 98,000 Americans put to work is better than 50,000…especially at an additional cost of just $1–1.5 billion more a year versus a single winner. That sounds like far more efficient stimulus spending than what we have become accustomed to the past few years.

Finally, how is it fair for the DoD and USAF to tell the low bidder just how low the higher bidder can go?

I’d like to know if you though about your question before you wrote it? Gee, I wonder if one of the most popular twin isle commercial airliners of all time, and currently the most used commercial airliner for trans Atlantic flights, the 767, could be used for anything other than refueling? Duh!!!

I meant to say, you are absolutely correct on the payload.

>It’s better to have 16 mid-sized aircraft than 11 large-sized aircraft… more aircraft means greater mission flexibility if one aircraft is grounded for maintenance, or another aircraft needs to be called upon for an emergency tanker mission or aerovac mission.

This is just laughably stupid, you need to change your argument — the bid was for the same number of aircraft.

Sounds good until you look at the details — for instance with 30% more loiter time the 330 has effectively 30% more booms in the air for a given number of aircraft.

As for Pago Pago and the A330 — Hawaiian Airlines flies there and is busy replacing it’s 767-300s that land there with A330s. Why is it currently ordering 23 A330s and not a single 767 — it’s simply economics you don’t buy obsolete aircraft if you want to stay in business.

The airport has 3 ramps and can lad a C-5 so the idea that only 1 A330 could fit is simply silly.

Read again in the context of the paragraph, I wasn’t talking about the number of aircraft being purchased. I was talking about the number of aircraft that can fit in the same parking space, when comparing large versus mid-sized aircraft.

Your ability to read and comprehend is what’s laughably stupid.

“85% US” based on what measure? Parts count? Weight? Procurement cost?

If the 15% “non-US” content includes 100% of the major airframe structural assemblies, then I’d argue that this “domestic solution KC-767″ has all the problems that the “foreign supplied KC-30″ is supposed to have…

Good to know you’re admitting that the US taxpayer is going to finance a new dash number of 767, so that Boeing can squeeze some more life out of that line while continuing its jam-tomorrow promises about 787.

Ho, ho, ho. You are aware that major suppliers for the 767 are in Europe and Japan, right?

A: You honestly believe that if Boeing says “we’re out of money, no profit means no tanker” the USAF will say “okay, guess we’ll just start over”?

B: You honestly believe that Boeing won’t charge out the arse for any change from the original RFP document?

Yeah, I love how everyone keeps saying “it’s a fixed-price contract!” like that’s going to solve all the problems.

People, IT IS GOING TO COST MORE. And Boeing is NOT just going to eat that cost. If nothing else, Boeing would go out of business if they go around losing money on the products they build, and then NOBODY would get a tanker.

If you think that “firm fixed price” is the solution to costs, then you should have also supported a split buy, to allow ACTUAL competition with ACTUAL products, rather than a contest to see who can put more American flags into their Powerpoint presentations.

Boeing aircraft programs have been government-funded ever since the 707.

And Boeing no longer has the ability to manufacture much of anything, let alone the load-bearing airframe structures of the 767. You talk as though there’s a giant Airplane Factory out in Seattle and all we have to do is dust off the machines and plug them back in. No. Even if they started tomorrow, it would take four years to establish the processes and technical expertise needed to produce good parts. Composites are not just black aluminum.

70%, mostly bits and bobs that are still cheaper to buy domestic. The big criticism of the KC-30 was “unfriendly overseas suppliers could screw us!” That same criticism applies to the KC-767; it just has a Boeing sticker on the side.

I’d love to see some of Boeing’s proposal packages. I bet there were pictures of the assembly facility at Everett on damn near every page.

Oh snap, Oblat just got BURNED!

get the plain working first before spouting off. It doesn’t even carry it’s original requirement because of weight growth. Will it be able to carry the medium tactical vehicles coming out in Europe? with so few being built, would it be effective to deploy forces with these? It’s not like Britain flew in challengers to liberate its nationals from the Libyan deserts. So in a short word, the a400 has no use when you already have c-17s. the a400 costs about the same as a c-17 so why even bother. c-130j has a plenty big backlog last time i checked, so many nations disagree with you also.

plane not plain

your arguing from a stupid point. you just see what you want to see.

Man you hate boeing. Your comments are less and less coherent.

Where are those European stealth fighters again? Oh thought so.

What are you smoking? The 727, 737, 757, 767, 777 & 787 were PRIVATELY FUNDED. And you should take a trip out to Seattle & visit the HUGE Boeing airplane factory churning out 737s, 767s & 777s (& soon 787s) every day.

Quite the opposite. It is “bits and bobs” (things like doors, panels, flaps) that are cheaper to buy overseas that make up ~30% of the 737, 767 & 777 airframes. There is a HUGE difference between 30% overseas & >95% overseas manufacturing AND Boeing is perfectly capable of manufacturing 100% if “unfriendly overseas suppliers could screw us”.

Actually, a tanker’s job is to transfer fuel effectively/efficiently. More often than not THE determining factor is how many tankers (& how close to the refueling points/tracks) can be operate in theater. And for those comparatively few instances were lots of fuel IS needed (we don’t even use the full capability of the KC-135R the majority of the time) is what the KC-10/KC-Y are for.

It didn’t. Read the GAO ruling. http://​www​.gao​.gov/​d​e​c​i​s​i​o​n​s​/​b​i​d​p​r​o​/​3​1​1​3​4​4​.​htm

Thanks for continuing to demonstrate that you just don’t get the reality of USAF tanker operations.

No. No matter the theater, you can operate MORE 767s closer to the refueling points/tracks than A330s & when you really do need greater fuel offload (we rarely even use the full capacity of the KC-135R) we have the KC-10/KC-Y.

No matter how you try & spin it there is NO way that the <58% US workshare KC-30 would employ as many Americans than the >85% US workshare KC-767. Not to mention that there is no way (especially with the need to make such large budget cuts) COngress is going to authorize enough funds to procure 24 tankers per year & even if it did 24 767s would be MUCH better than 12 KC-767s + 12 KC-30s.

How is it fair to force the USAF to alter its requirements/criteria just so that a foreign competitor can compete when the US bidder’s bid EXCEEDS (even the altered) requirements?

Dream on, 30% more loiter time has has effectively 0% more booms in the air for a given number of aircraft.

Airlines are buying A330’s because today’s (& the short to mid term projections) call for airliners that carry 250–300 passengers.

Except you cannot park tankers near refueling points/tracks or have those closer to targets anymore due to anti-access strategies and TBM. Pacific distances throw historical refueling averages out the window as does capability to top off fellow tankers before heading for a distant home base…to avoid TBM.

No matter how you spin it, having in country competition for tankers would make both companies perform better and expand the industrial base. 20 annual tankers would be sufficient, especially since EADS could build freighters half the year and tankers the other half at the same factory. Same for 767.

They got Boeing to drop its price substantially. SImply ask EADS to match it and achieve an LCS-like taxpayer bonus and job creator.

Reality changes. An old study compared how many flights could have been consolidated during Desert Storm. Somehow they always managed to find out how to use the extra KC-10 fuel. And that was prior to capability to top off other tankers which would have consolidated mission that could not work with the KC-135R or KC-767 levels of fuel.

Problem is, the USAF must fly long distances to avoid TBM, top off multiple aircraft, and still have fuel leftover to transfer to other tankers and return to base. Can do with KC-30…can’t with KC-767. You still think there will be money for KC-Y and KC-Z? Still believe we will have as many tankers in the future as we have now? The budget will force fewer and more efficient tankers, which means a split buy would create more aircraft with a mix of offload capability without excessive fuel consumption of KC-Y/KC-10 sized aircraft.

Except that every plane the USAF is evaluating is smaller than a 767, which of course makes it way smaller than a A330. Most likely seems to be the 737 (well BBJ) based P-8 which is way smaller than a A330 but has pretty much the same range and endurance, with enough payload for the mission, at a fraction of the cost.

Hi,
Aviation Week has a good blog article on the A400M and the new Embraer KC-390.
http://​www​.aviationweek​.com/​a​w​/​g​e​n​e​r​i​c​/​s​t​o​r​y​_​c​han
C130 is on the way out. KC-390 is better at same size, A400M is better at twice the size. I agree C17 is necessary for the big stuff.

The Betting Pool will open on Monday
You can on bet the following areas
1 Boeing will not make the 2017 date for the first 18 aircraft
2. Boeing will notified the Air Force within 3 years that they will be behind schedule and over cost
3. The first tanker Delivery the Aircraft will abort for not passing fuel
4. Boeing will try to convince the Air Force that they need to change to the B777 tanker instead

I wouldn’t touch that bet with a ten-meter cattle prod. Boeing can’t even deliver COMMERCIAL aircraft on time, what makes people think they’ll do better with a no-fail government contract?

Remember that it took four billion dollars to get the government to admit that FIA was a no-go.

Yea you do — check out the invoice on a new car purchase.

I believe in my country! I hope the Boeing craft is better than the other ones.

KC-10 Boomer made the most relevant point . The primary purpose of the tanker is to support the warfighter. Both companies spend millions lobbying the crooks in congress. Both companies would pretend to build the tanker in the US while outsourcing globally. The difference is that Boeing bid a mid-size airframe that better met the proposal criteria. The mid-size plane can land on more runways, can be parked in greater numbers on more runways, burns less fuel, and most importantly, is more nimble in performing refueling abort maneuvers.

EADS could have bid a smaller airframe that better met the proposal criteria, but chose not to. On the first go-around, Boeing could have bid the larger 777 airframe (they included it as an option in the second round), but didn’t because it could not meet the proposal criteria. Yet, the Air Force procurement office awarded the first round to EADS based on criteria favoring a larger airframe which were not specified in the Bid Proposal.

The warfighter finally won and got the right size airframe.

Saw a story in Drudge that the rest of the World is viewing the United States as being weak, cannot make up it mind on Foreign Affaris

You know Boeing has 3 different models of the 767, the smaller –200, the cargo –300 and the few feet shorter than the A330, –400, So if Boeing had Balls they should have offered their –400, Check my last post Boeing will end up changing to either a –400 or the 777 before it is all over

Your analysis is all wrong. If EADS had wanted to compete, they should have brought a medium tanker to a medium tanker competition instead of trying the car salesman trick of selling you something you don’t want. Of course in EADS defense, they don’t have a suitable aircraft in the size requested, so they went for plan B (Convince the USAF that they really didn’t know anything about aerial refueling and really really wanted a bigger tanker). Boeing gave the USAF what they asked for in the RFP, a medium tanker. A 767–200 provided the best mix of capacity.

the artical says it burns less fuel per flight but you may have to make two or more flights to do the same mission
we flew missions in desert storm with one kc-10 that took 5 kc135s to perform just based ne the larger fuel capasatiy we may still need the kc-45 in the future. the demand for large ofloads now keep the 10s on the road there is a need for both sizes of tankers but i think the larger tanker is needed now with our curent situation

Standby for poor performance and overruns. Trust me, been there and done that too many times with Boing.….And that’s not a mispell. That’s how they get well from a buy-in.….

I wonder what the bidding process would be like if their were more American Aircraft Companys around put to participate in the Bid process? Glad it stayed American. I hope Boeing will use American products instead of those from other countries, I doubt it though. They will just put it togeather in the USA, just as EADS was going to do.

Just look at all of the Airbus 380s flying around!! Impressive aren’t they? Gimme a break.

You are a PIN HEAD!

The 767 has the same footprint as the kc 135. It can share facilities, hangers, ramps etc. The airbus would require new hangers and other facilities. Looking at the big picture there really wasn’t a hard decision.

FUEL!!!! Exactly Bronco46!! He who saves the most fuel wins! Need any of us be reminded with the volatility in the Mideast now, and the price of a barrel of oil?

Not only that, but we have a lot of manufacturing facitlites here in the US from Airbus. So either way, it would have been mostly made in the US. I wonder if more folks were actually been employed by Airbus than Boeing?

Hell, subcontractors make up the lion’s share of the jobs anyway. Those overpaid Boeing workers, are getting fewer and fewer.

*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.