You are at netAirspace : Forum : Air and Space Forums : Military Aviation

Just saw the newsflash on Reuters - more details to follow when I see 'em.

A double

Watching the press conference live now:

http://player.theplatform.com/ps/player/pds/PVZ32iOKjb?pid=Bx8ejNQ_fa432q3IiXAgFuC8B10j9bqq

Good, Americans should build the equipment that the American military uses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/busin ... ?src=twrhp

Congrats to Boeing, that's great news for them!

I was hoping the best a/c would win, and if the Pentagon believes it to be the KC-46A, then so be it.

And, as an aside, I've been monitoring for other opinions on the outcome from others we've known to have an interest in the matter, no outrageous remarks (yet).

About time! Beautiful jet.

From AFG's link:

Richard L. Aboulafia, an aviation analyst at the Teal Group in Fairfax, Va., said the victory could help Boeing in its battle with Airbus in the much larger market for passenger jets and freighters.

If EADS had won the tanker contract, it planned to eventually assemble commercial freighter planes at the Mobile plant, giving it a manufacturing beachhead that could help it expand other sales in the United States.

And with sharp budget cuts in Europe, “EADS also faces a home defense market that is imploding like black hole,” Mr. Aboulafia said. “So it was imperative that they get this contract.”

The award also could mark the end of a long and often embarrassing effort by the Air Force to replace its aging tankers, which date back to the Eisenhower and Kennedy years.

Our European members probably know more about that.

Thank god that 7 year circus has ended.

Richard L. Aboulafia, an aviation analyst at the Teal Group in Fairfax, Va., said the victory could help Boeing in its battle with Airbus in the much larger market for passenger jets and freighters.

Yes, I can see all those airlines with A330 orders rushing out to buy 763s now Evidently, Richard L. Aboulafia hasn't the faintest idea how the EADS and Airbus are structured.

Allstarflyer wrote:And, as an aside, I've been monitoring for other opinions on the outcome from others we've known to have an interest in the matter, no outrageous remarks (yet).

The Senator of Alabama has said a few things that many on here would probably find outrageous:-

“I’m disappointed but not surprised,” Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama said. “Only Chicago politics could tip the scales in favor of Boeing’s inferior plane. EADS clearly offers the more capable aircraft. If this decision stands, our warfighters will not get the superior equipment they deserve.”

All politics aside, it's good for aviation in general that the 767 frame finds another use, in the same way that the 707 did and is still flying in the form of the KC-135. The A330 line is working overtime to keep up with the orders that came in up to eighteen months ago. With a backlog still exceeding 300 frames, many on the A330 line will privately be breathing a sigh of relief that their order book will be staying manageable. Adding another 179 frames, and the hassle that comes with dealing with a government department, to the mix would have caused more problems than the additional orders would ever have been worth.

graphic wrote:Thank god that 7 year circus has ended.

Has it been that long? Wow. Sometimes I think the whole thing would have had more credibility if they'd just straight-out given it to Boeing. No mention of an appeal by EADS that I could see, let's hope it stays that way and someone can actually get on with building some planes.

Hopefully the US Government has at least got a good deal out of this farce.

ShanwickOceanic wrote:

graphic wrote:Thank god that 7 year circus has ended.

Has it been that long? Wow.

No, longer, if you include how long Boeing was lobbying for the lease option which dated back to 2001.

graphic wrote:Thank god that 7 year circus has ended.

While I'm glad that Boeing got the contract, I don't think anything has ended, yet. I expect EADS to protest this, just as I would have expected Boeing to protest had the contract gone to EADS.

JeffSFO wrote:No, longer, if you include how long Boeing was lobbying for the lease option which dated back to 2001.

I'd love to know how much all this governmental fannying around has cost, denominated in 767s...

Airfoilsguy wrote:Good, Americans should build the equipment that the American military uses.

Even if it's inferior (I'm talking generally, not slagging the 767), or if American jobs are put at risk? I can definitely see it your way, I'm just not sure it's that simple in a world of licence-building, global supply chains, etc. What exactly does that "Made in the USA" sticker mean? I'd hazard a guess that the A330 tanker would have been more "American-made" than your average 787.

ShyFlyer wrote:While I'm glad that Boeing got the contract, I don't think anything has ended, yet. I expect EADS to protest this, just as I would have expected Boeing to protest had the contract gone to EADS.

There has to be a lesson in this for future large contracts. This multi-billion-dollar kindergarten benefits nobody, least of all those of us paying for it (which, since EADS is involved, probably includes me somehow).

ShanwickOceanic wrote:

JeffSFO wrote:No, longer, if you include how long Boeing was lobbying for the lease option which dated back to 2001.

I'd love to know how much all this governmental fannying around has cost, denominated in 767s...

Airfoilsguy wrote:Good, Americans should build the equipment that the American military uses.

Even if it's inferior (I'm talking generally, not slagging the 767), or if American jobs are put at risk? I can definitely see it your way, I'm just not sure it's that simple in a world of licence-building, global supply chains, etc. What exactly does that "Made in the USA" sticker mean? I'd hazard a guess that the A330 tanker would have been more "American-made" than your average 787.

ShyFlyer wrote:While I'm glad that Boeing got the contract, I don't think anything has ended, yet. I expect EADS to protest this, just as I would have expected Boeing to protest had the contract gone to EADS.

There has to be a lesson in this for future large contracts. This multi-billion-dollar kindergarten benefits nobody, least of all those of us paying for it (which, since EADS is involved, probably includes me somehow).

Just to elaborate a bit more. I believe that all major military hardware should be built in the country that is using it. Not only for political reasons but for tactical. What if we go to war with Europe? Sure I know the possibility is remote but if we did they would cut us off. Look at Iran, we sold them a bunch of fighter jets that became almost worthless as soon as we decided to hate them.

Airfoilsguy wrote:Just to elaborate a bit more. I believe that all major military hardware should be built in the country that is using it. Not only for political reasons but for tactical. What if we go to war with Europe? Sure I know the possibility is remote but if we did they would cut us off. Look at Iran, we sold them a bunch of fighter jets that became almost worthless as soon as we decided to hate them.

Yes, that makes perfect sense. But if that's an argument for buying American, then you have to be buying American. Your 767 can't have any bits on it that aren't made in the US. If the gear's made in Italy, say, and you rip it off in an overrun, you're as boned as Iran in terms of getting replacements.

This was a no-brainer decision. Regardless of all the "we'll build it in America" hype from EADS, the fact is that politically, this was the right move for Obama. If Boeing had lost, they would have shed jobs, and the image of another US manufacturer losing jobs would have been a millstone around Obama's neck, and there is no way giving EADS the contract would have added D votes in the south.

Operationally, it is a smart move, because the 330 footprint is larger than the 767, and carries more fuel than is typically needed for a routine mission. Ny nephew is a boom operator on a KC-10, and he says they almost never leave close to max takeoff weight because they don't need the extra fuel.

EADS/Airbus has no reason to be upset. Their A400M airlifter is being bought by European nations partially because it is a European product, not because it is the best value.

JLAmber wrote:179 frames

THAT's what all this crap has been about? Only 179 of them? 800 KC-135's were built with over 400 of them still in operation, I thought this was actually going to be something worth writing home about and a suitable "replacement" for the KC-135 and KC-10, too.

ShanwickOceanic wrote:

Airfoilsguy wrote:Just to elaborate a bit more. I believe that all major military hardware should be built in the country that is using it. Not only for political reasons but for tactical. What if we go to war with Europe? Sure I know the possibility is remote but if we did they would cut us off. Look at Iran, we sold them a bunch of fighter jets that became almost worthless as soon as we decided to hate them.

Yes, that makes perfect sense. But if that's an argument for buying American, then you have to be buying American. Your 767 can't have any bits on it that aren't made in the US. If the gear's made in Italy, say, and you rip it off in an overrun, you're as boned as Iran in terms of getting replacements.

Actually the gear is made in California, but since California is about as unstable as most 3rd rate countries I personally know of a forge shop in Canton Ohio that could handle making that gear. Point being it dosen't matter where the small parts are made, they can be copied anywhere, it matters where the big stuff is produced, that can't be easily copied.

graphic wrote:Thank god that 7 year circus has ended.

Haha no it hasn't! This is America where clowns feed us and lawyers live off of crap like this. How many times has this contract been awarded now?

JLAmber wrote:
All politics aside, it's good for aviation in general that the 767 frame finds another use, in the same way that the 707 did and is still flying in the form of the KC-135. The A330 line is working overtime to keep up with the orders that came in up to eighteen months ago. With a backlog still exceeding 300 frames, many on the A330 line will privately be breathing a sigh of relief that their order book will be staying manageable. Adding another 179 frames, and the hassle that comes with dealing with a government department, to the mix would have caused more problems than the additional orders would ever have been worth.

Yeah, you're right. Its good that Boeing won. European Government Paid EADS didn''t want the 35$B USD contract anway!

They only bid to make Boeing look good. Never mind the fact that it does the same job for much cheaper and the EADS alternative can't even deliver fuel properly yet.

But in another test flight from Getafe, Madrid, last month, the air-refueling boom of a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) A330MRTT (or KC-30A) broke during contact with a Portuguese Air Force F-16. Both aircraft were damaged but landed safely.

http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-ne ... rtt-28447/

I want the cheapest option to pump fuel in the air. Sorry Eurofans, this one is simple.

So, an AMERICAN company building planes to fuel the AMERICAN AIR FORCE!

What a concept.

Should never, ever have been a contest, period.

Seriously, I think the Boeing airframe better anyway. And I'm disgusted this has taken so long. I know I'm letting my US Flag fly here, but, well . . . too bad.

ANCFlyer wrote:So, an AMERICAN company building planes to fuel the AMERICAN AIR FORCE!

What a concept.

Should never, ever have been a contest, period.

Seriously, I think the Boeing airframe better anyway. And I'm disgusted this has taken so long. I know I'm letting my US Flag fly here, but, well . . . too bad.

Funny enough, I actually agree with you here. I can see why the US Air Force is more comfortable with US airplanes. The here is that they tried to make the decision appear to be the result of a fair contest.

Queso wrote:THAT's what all this crap has been about? Only 179 of them? 800 KC-135's were built with over 400 of them still in operation, I thought this was actually going to be something worth writing home about and a suitable "replacement" for the KC-135 and KC-10, too.

It's still labelled the single biggest aviation deal of all times, so I guess it does qualify as "something worth writing home about".

Fumanchewd wrote:How many times has this contract been awarded now?

3rd time, IIRC. First Boeing won it, but it turned out it was because they received exclusive information from the Pentagon. Second time, EADS won it, but it was decided that, if the contest did not deliver the desired result, something must have been wrong with the contest. So there was the third one, and now it's Boeing again.

EADS now has ten days to challenge the decision. One possible reason is that a big mistake was being made during the contest, when the EADS bid details were "accidentally" returned to Boeing, and vice versa. Pentagon said it was a "typing error". Sounds really plausible to me. I mean, a multi-billion contest with two bidders - it's easy to see how you can get confused there, right?

ShanwickOceanic wrote:Hopefully the US Government has at least got a good deal out of this farce.

Even though I wonder if it wouldn't have been cheaper to just pay Boeing whatever they were asking for in first place.

But indeed, showing Boeing that they cannot just ask for any price may have been one key factor for holding this contest.

Queso wrote:

JLAmber wrote:179 frames

THAT's what all this crap has been about? Only 179 of them? 800 KC-135's were built with over 400 of them still in operation, I thought this was actually going to be something worth writing home about and a suitable "replacement" for the KC-135 and KC-10, too.

Then there will be some KC-135s in operation for a good while yet. The first batch of 18 KC-767s won't be available until 2017, so we should see KC-135s in service well beyond 2020. What plans there are to account for the lesser numbers is anybody's guess.

JLAmber wrote:Then there will be some KC-135s in operation for a good while yet. The first batch of 18 KC-767s won't be available until 2017, so we should see KC-135s in service well beyond 2020. What plans there are to account for the lesser numbers is anybody's guess.

I don't know what the plans are, but I suspect they include fewer deployments of fewer airplanes, given the realities of budget issues.

halls120 wrote:I don't know what the plans are, but I suspect they include fewer deployments of fewer airplanes, given the realities of budget issues.

There's always the UK model; carriers with no aircraft don't need tankers, after all. A stroke of genius!

JLAmber wrote:The first batch of 18 KC-767s won't be available until 2017, so we should see KC-135s in service well beyond 2020. What plans there are to account for the lesser numbers is anybody's guess.

There are only 50 airframes to be built (before this order), and we have to wait another 5 years?