• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Air Force Tanker Drama Over (Boeing Wins)

Schadenfroh

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
http://www.dailytech.com/Northrop+Pulls+Out+of+Tanker+Bidding+Process/article17857.htm
EADS will not submit a European only bid leaving Boeing as the sole bidder
Click to expand...

It looks like Boeing has won.

"After a comprehensive analysis of the final RFP, Northrop Grumman has determined that it will not submit a bid to the Department of Defense for the KC-X program. We reached this conclusion based on the structure of the source selection methodology defined in the RFP, which clearly favors Boeing's smaller refueling tanker and does not provide adequate value recognition of the added capability of a larger tanker, precluding us from any competitive opportunity."
Click to expand...

Looks like the new "competition" was designed so that Boeing would win. Shame this has become so political. I have no idea why there was such an outcry since the militarization of the Airbus planes would be done in America. Boeing uses foreign made components all the time and why people are upset about our military purchasing hardware from NATO allies is beyond me, I mean NATO allies buy our hardware all the time.

Update Boeing won the third go around, see my last reply
 
yeah boeing outlasted them. what is this - the third time the tanker contract was up? the first time around the air force was going to lease the new tankers for some insane amount greater than buying them outright. then some air force official involved in the contract was given a cushy boeing job. and then the grumman/eads bit.
 
I don't even know why they were even considering a European plane and wasted so much time. Our tax dollars at time of high unemployment going to build Airbuses in EU? Crazy.
 
senseamp said:
I don't even know why they were even considering a European plane and wasted so much time. Our tax dollars at time of high unemployment going to build Airbuses in EU? Crazy.
Click to expand...

First of all, the planes would have been built in Alabama.

Secondly, the US military is not a jobs program, its sole purpose should be to protect the national interests of the United States. Military procurement's only goal should be to get them the best equipment at the best price, and if that means buying European planes then so be it. It's not like they never buy military gear from the US.
 
ppatin said:
First of all, the planes would have been built in Alabama.

Secondly, the US military is not a jobs program, its sole purpose should be to protect the national interests of the United States. Military procurement's only goal should be to get them the best equipment at the best price, and if that means buying European planes then so be it. It's not like they never buy military gear from the US.
Click to expand...

No, the planes would be built in the EU by Airbus and converted to tankers in Alabama, so it would not be creating as many jobs as it would if planes were built here too.
Secondly, it is in the national interest of the US to keep defense jobs and capabilities here.
As a US taxpayer, I want my tax dollars to procure American gear and employ Americans, unless it's simply not available here, which is not the case with these tankers. I don't see France procuring Boeing tankers.
 
MovingTarget said:
Is this a sign of things to come in the defense industry?
Click to expand...

Things to come? Check out some other military hardware... the C-17 for instance. Even the Air Force says they have enough. But the congressmen whose districts include parts makers for the plane... keeping making the military order more.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/DR...010/February 24 2010/TooMuchofaGoodThing.aspx

Now we will have 300+ tankers flying around. Good time to try to get in the Air Force as a pilot.
 
senseamp said:
Procured in 1985. Maybe they didn't have their own tanker capability then. We have our own homegrown stuff we can get. I don't see why we need to get Airbuses if Boeing is just as good.
Click to expand...

Boeing's product is inferior in a lot of ways. The A330 is bigger, can carry more fuel and is a more modern airplane than the 767. If we simply hand these kinds of competitions to Boeing then they'll have no reason to submit competitive bids and will rip off the US taxpayers. Since there's no domestic competition we have to allow EADS a realistic shot at winning.
 
Plus Alabama already gets $1.66 from feds for every dollar in federal taxes it pays, while Washington gets 88cents and Illinois gets 75cents. So it sounds to me like small government loving Alabama can use a break from leeching off other states for a while.
 
ppatin said:
Boeing's product is inferior in a lot of ways. The A330 is bigger, can carry more fuel and is a more modern airplane than the 767. If we simply hand these kinds of competitions to Boeing then they'll have no reason to submit competitive bids and will rip off the US taxpayers. Since there's no domestic competition we have to allow EADS a realistic shot at winning.
Click to expand...

Sure, we have to give them a "shot," as long as they don't actually win 🙂
Also, Boeing has bigger more modern planes, 767 just fits USAF requirements better, and it is going to be upgraded with modern avionics, etc. Boeing won fair and square, just pissing me off we wasted so much time even considering EADS bid and this drama.
 
Surprised they honestly dont have a 787 version. And what exactly is wrong with the KC-135 that they need to be replaced?
 
Genx87 said:
Surprised they honestly dont have a 787 version. And what exactly is wrong with the KC-135 that they need to be replaced?
Click to expand...

I believe its a matter of age.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKWEB484420100310

French Minister Says U.S. Tanker Affair Not Closed

March 10, 2010 (Reuters)

PARIS (Reuters) - A top French minister on Wednesday attacked the United States' handling of an aerial tanker contract, which has seen Europe's EADS drop out of the race, and said the matter was not over yet.

"This has gone beyond acceptable," said France's European Affairs Minister Pierre Lellouche, who was speaking after a ministerial meeting.

He added that as far as he was concerned, the multibillion-dollar matter was not closed and would lead to further developments.

Earlier this week, the Pentagon said it may speed up awarding the contract after Northrop Grumman Corp and EADS pulled out, leaving Boeing Co as the sole bidder.
Northrop and EADS had won an initial bid for the contract in but later lost after U.S. government auditors upheld a Boeing protest.
(Reporting by Yann Le Guernigou and Emmanuel Jarry; Editing by Hans Peters)
 
Last edited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_KC-45

Production plans

The first four units would have been converted from passenger versions at EADS EFW in Dresden, Germany. Airbus planned to assemble the aircraft in Mobile, Alabama, after which they would have been modified by Northrop Grumman. EADS had also announced plans to shift A330 commercial freighter assembly to Alabama.[12] As the winner of the Air Force contract, Northrop Grumman and EADS (the airframe subcontractor) were expected to invest approximately US$600 million in new assembly plants in the United States adjacent to one another in the Brookley Complex in Mobile.
Click to expand...
 
ppatin said:
Boeing's product is inferior in a lot of ways. The A330 is bigger, can carry more fuel and is a more modern airplane than the 767. If we simply hand these kinds of competitions to Boeing then they'll have no reason to submit competitive bids and will rip off the US taxpayers. Since there's no domestic competition we have to allow EADS a realistic shot at winning.
Click to expand...

if the AF wanted a larger plane then boeing could have offered a 777 variant, i'm sure. the AF didn't want a larger plane; they already have the tri-jets around for when they need more fuel at a longer range. problem is airbus only wanted to sell a larger plane.


anyway,

The KC-X program is the first of three acquisition programs the Air Force will need to replace the entire fleet of aging KC-135 Stratotankers
Click to expand...
i wonder what the other two programs will be?



Genx87 said:
That isnt stopping the B52's that are scheduled to be in service until 2045. Or how about the C-130s? Those are also 1950s designs.
Click to expand...
i'll bet there's more flight time on the KC-135 airframes than on the bombers or the C-130s
 
Last edited:
ElFenix said:
if the AF wanted a larger plane then boeing could have offered a 777 variant, i'm sure. the AF didn't want a larger plane; they already have the tri-jets around for when they need more fuel at a longer range. problem is airbus only wanted to sell a larger plane.


anyway,


i wonder what the other two programs will be?




i'll bet there's more flight time on the KC-135 airframes than on the bombers or the C-130s
Click to expand...

They are all maintained the same. The C-130 is a working lifthorse for our armed forces. The b52s dont fly as many missions. It seems to arbirtary they need a new refueler.
 
Genx87 said:
Surprised they honestly dont have a 787 version. And what exactly is wrong with the KC-135 that they need to be replaced?
Click to expand...

Wing spars start to get cracks in them over time. Once that happens you can fix for a little while.. but eventually it will be too far gone to repair and too dangerous to haul 200,000 pounds of jet-a. Just way to expensive to replace a spar. Otherwise the plane could be outfitted with new engines and new avionics forever.

ElFenix said:
i'll bet there's more flight time on the KC-135 airframes than on the bombers or the C-130s
Click to expand...

Flight time does not matter as much as number of cycles (pressurize and depressurize airframe)... c-130's don't fly as high and the b-52's have fewer and longer range missions. And the Kc-135 mission dictates that they get a lot more use. So more cycles and more fatigue... so yeh they do wear out a lot faster.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top