Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.  
User currently offlinemoderators From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 513 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 7 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 25703 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Dear Airliners.net community, as Boeing has won the KC-X bid, please use this thread to discuss the outcome of this bid in all its details and its influence on the market and future projects of Boeing and EADS.

Enjoy, the A.net Moderators


Please use moderators@airliners.net to contact us.
274 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinetitanmiller From United States of America, joined May 2006, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 25720 times:

Why not put the GEnx engine on the KC-46? Seems like a reasonable way to cut fuel burn and help future-proof the design. The GEnx-2B67 being used on the 747-8 is sized properly for the job (fan diameter may be an issue, it is 13 inches bigger than the PW4000).

Then again, I don't know that isn't in their proposal already.

[Edited 2011-02-24 16:16:54]

[Edited 2011-02-24 16:17:40]

[Edited 2011-02-24 16:19:46]

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13213 posts, RR: 77
Reply 2, posted (3 years 7 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 25629 times:

(From KC-135's disappeared thread)


Quoting cosmofly (Reply 25):
EADS has in the end helped the US tax payers as the USAF gets a much better deal now. We have to give EADS credit.

Absolutely, as others noted, this is a story going back a decade, even one Senator John McCain found that original Boeing contract back in 2002/3 was a piss take of corporate welfare.
Boeing have had to, via the torturous process since, provide a better solution.
Without the very serious competition from EADS, that would not have happened.

Will this USAF win change the fortunes of KC-767's in the international market? Busy with the USAF Boeing might not be too concerned, (they so have to deliver for the USAF now, they'll have to go all out on that), since a serious A330 based competitor entered the market Boeing have not had success there, since the pre A330 platform Japanese and Italian orders.

For smaller AF's, that is most except the USAF, the larger capacity A330 makes more sense in giving the most capability over a small fleet of aircraft, not really a concern for the USAF however.

I agree that EADS should not bother in appealing, altruism to the US taxpayer might not come into it, though surely someone has to break the cycle of all these appeals that seem to do little except keep lawyers and consultants like pigs in shit (on the US tax $ too). Worse, effectively denying the end user the kit they are waiting for (think of the CSAR helicopter saga here - surely a priority item - as a particularly bad example).

Will the experience of EADS here, (regardless of fault which seems evenly spread for everyone involved), deter non US bidders for contracts in future? Regardless of how many production lines/jobs they might provide in the US, aside from the quality of the product?
Or is it just that this contract was that much more politically visible?

A majority of defence contracts for the US will go to US owned companies, that's a given especially when ultra sensitive equipment is concerned, I think most understand this in the business.
'NIH' has gone wrong in the past however, for instance in the early 60's political pressure ensured a US design for a medium machine gun, gave the troops the M-60.
It took 20 years, combat experience, but eventually the FN design ended up with the troops, US produced under licence and generally seem as what should have been procured from the start.
They also picked a FN design for a squad MG, at time I understand, in the early 80's, there was just no viable US alternative, so that was by default almost.

That should be a consideration when non US owned companies are bidding, does my product offer something no one else's can, in a reasonable cost and time-frame?
History seems to support this, the US adopted a British aircraft - the first since WW1 - when Martin got the licence to produce the Canberra as the B-57, when this was very rare, more so for a front line combat type.
The sky did not fall in, simply the USAF had a near term need that local industry seemed not to provide, including, ironically, Martin's own XB-51, not a satisfactory design, or at least one needing a lot of work, the Canberra was in production and service at the time.

It happened again in the late 60's, the USMC, with their unique needs, saw that if they wanted a viable VSTOL aircraft and soon, there was only one place to go. (And the first generation AV-8A's were built in the UK).
Ten years later, the USN needed a new advanced trainer, IIRC the only US offering was an updated T-2 Buckeye, the type to be replaced, so it was between the Hawk and Alpha Jet.

Not that any of these applies to the tankers, as seen, there was not much between them, technically neither was superior to the other, it was really about the particular needs of the customer.

The next biggie in aerospace is the USAF trainer.................duck and cover!

(And congrats to Boeing of course).


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31013 posts, RR: 87
Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 25480 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I was shocked when I heard the report that Boeing won. Pleased, but shocked.




Quoting titanmiller (Reply 1):
Why not put the GEnx engine on the KC-46?

Well GE would have to develop a version that would work on the 767 airframe, so that raises the costs. Also, there is a huge supply of spares for the CF6-80 series of engines and that helps keep maintenance costs down for the USAF.


User currently offlineBoeEngr From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 321 posts, RR: 35
Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 25462 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
I was shocked when I heard the report that Boeing won. Pleased, but shocked.

I hear you. I was absolutely stunned. A very exciting day for us on the program.


User currently offlinewolbo From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 488 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 25458 times:

(From KC-135's disappeared thread)

Any other outcome would have been politically unacceptable so this decision was not a surprise.


User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2325 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 25403 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 2):
Absolutely, as others noted, this is a story going back a decade, even one Senator John McCain found that original Boeing contract back in 2002/3 was a piss take of corporate welfare.

But it does make me wonder - if McCain didn't jump all over the original tanker lease deal, where would we be today? Not to excuse any illegal activities involved, and yes, maybe the USAF would have paid more than they should have for them, but they would be flying today, and how many millions would have been saved by the government, Boeing, and EADS, among others, by not having to go through several rounds of the procurement process?



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineBoeEngr From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 321 posts, RR: 35
Reply 7, posted (3 years 7 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 25407 times:

Quoting wolbo (Reply 5):
Any other outcome would have been politically unacceptable so this decision was not a surprise.

It could also be that the 767 met all the requirements at a lower price, couldn't it?


User currently onlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3082 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 25407 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
was shocked when I heard the report that Boeing won. Pleased, but shocked.



Our exact sentiments. I'm on the Tanker program part-time (along with 787 and other work) and was shocked, but happy, when listening to the Pentagon news conference. All my colleagues whom I contacted afterwards felt the same. Teaches everyone not to listen to the rumors and media speculation.

Now the USAF will get a Tanker built where the best airplanes in the world are built, and designed by the best aerospace engineers in the world - Everett, Washington.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8551 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 25362 times:

I'm glad this contract got all the scrutiny that it has. It's still a speculative program for an imagined need in my opinion. But, it is here. It would be great if other things (such as health care) got as much skepticism as this bidding process has. The whole ordeal has been educational about the relations between corporations, politics, taxation and public opinion.

The airplanes are the easy part. We know both teams can make a top quality product, and Boeing will. There is a balance between scrutiny and paralysis. These programs need oversight. But, now it is time to get it done without making this another lawyer fest.


User currently offlineBD338 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 709 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 7 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 25292 times:

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 4):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
I was shocked when I heard the report that Boeing won. Pleased, but shocked.

I hear you. I was absolutely stunned. A very exciting day for us on the program.

I can't say I'm even the remotest bit surprised. State of US economy and politics almost dictated the final result, throw in the re-bids and hey presto the result the politicos wanted from day one. At least the 767 could be around for another 30-50 years.


User currently offlineBoeEngr From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 321 posts, RR: 35
Reply 11, posted (3 years 7 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 25266 times:

Quoting BD338 (Reply 10):
State of US economy and politics almost dictated the final result, throw in the re-bids and hey presto the result the politicos wanted from day one.

How did politics make the 767 meet all requirements at a lower price than the A330?


User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4481 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 25205 times:

Is the tanker based on the 767-200, 300 or 400?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31013 posts, RR: 87
Reply 13, posted (3 years 7 months 2 days ago) and read 25002 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting moose135 (Reply 6):
But it does make me wonder - if McCain didn't jump all over the original tanker lease deal, where would we be today?

We'd be on our way to having 100 KC-767s in service for a lower total cost than what we've spent keeping the oldest KC-135s in operation, not to mention all the costs spent on the multiple RFPs and challenges.

Quoting GDB (Reply 2):
Will the experience of EADS here, (regardless of fault which seems evenly spread for everyone involved), deter non US bidders for contracts in future?

BAE certainly doesn't seem to feel this way, considering how hard they are working to win contracts and become a major US defense company.

[Edited 2011-02-25 11:00:42 by srbmod]

User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8551 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (3 years 7 months 2 days ago) and read 24941 times:

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 11):
How did politics make the 767 meet all requirements at a lower price than the A330?

Politics made the requirements and budget fit the 767.


User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3470 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (3 years 7 months 2 days ago) and read 24869 times:

I thought Boeing was putting up the 777 for this deal. BTW, where will it be assembled?


"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3411 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 24753 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 16):
Politics made the requirements and budget fit the 767.

Noooo, replacing the KC-135 is what made the requirements fit the 767 better. Its not exactly ideal, but still better than the KC30 which is larger than a B52 to provide less offload than a KC10. Last time around the KC30 didn't even meet 2 manditory requirements in a black and white manner, with more in a gray area. I'd not call failing to meet requirements a good way to win contracts when the rules and laws governing this things says that you CAN'T win.

Maybe this is finaly over. I doubt it though.


User currently offlineMrSkyGuy From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1214 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 24683 times:

Politics, budgets and grand-standing aside.. Boeing, you have my congratulations. This will be a much-needed boost to the American economy and morale.

Well done.



"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee." -- Gunter's 2nd Law of Air
User currently offlinedbo861 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 888 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 24687 times:

Any idea how soon we'll see a KC-767 operational in the USAF?

User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 19, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 24669 times:

Quoting kl911 (Reply 17):
Just politics.... A very sad day it is...

I really can't see that. The Pentagon selected a fully-capable aircraft which is already in service, at lower cost than the only alternative, which is not yet in service, is experiencing serious 'teething troubles' in testing, and does not as yet have any sort of firm delivery date.

"The incident happened while the first of five KC-30As bound for the RAAF – and the first A330 MRTT development aircraft – was conducting a refuelling currency mission with Portuguese air force F-16s. Sources say preliminary reports suggest the boom’s probe snapped off near the F-16’s receptacle, causing the boom to spring up and strike the underside of the KC-30, possibly snapping off one of its two guiding fins and causing it to oscillate wildly until it snapped off at the pivot point.

"The boom departed the aircraft and fell to the ocean below. Fortunately, both the tanker and the F-16 recovered safely to their respective bases with no injuries to the crews of either aircraft.

------------------------------

"RAAF deliveries are currently running more than two years behind schedule due to development delays with the boom, and issues in writing the aircraft’s comprehensive technical publications."


http://australianaviation.com.au/201...oom-or-bust-raaf-kc-30-loses-boom/

Seems to me that if they HAD selected the Airbus offering, with all those strikes against it, that really WOULD have reeked of politics?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8285 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 24653 times:

Quoting moose135 (Reply 6):
But it does make me wonder - if McCain didn't jump all over the original tanker lease deal, where would we be today?

We would be having new tankers flying today.

It was more expensive, especially since it was based on a lease and not a purchase. Cars are more expensive in the long run if you go the lease/purchase route.

But then there would have been fewer layoffs at Boeing after 9/11. As I recall that was the prime reason after 9/11 - to keep employment in the plane building sector up.

Didn't happen so we lost tax revenues from the workers who should have been working, and we started paying out unemployment benefits as well as other benefits. That is a double whammy and, if we really knew that number, we could tell if McCain saved us money, or cost us money.

BTW, lease payments are not included in a private company Balance Sheet. The payments are an expense on the P&L, but there is no asset. It's cash flow only.

Quoting moose135 (Reply 6):
maybe the USAF would have paid more than they should have for them

And now we will have a cost impacted by 10 years of inflation, plus the double whammy noted above. My bet is that we are no better off, nor is the USAF.


Quoting kl911 (Reply 17):
Taxpayers are hit again.. as usual.

Nope. The statement was that there was a clear winner when the 1% difference was considered. EADS was more expensive if Boeing was less than 1% less expensive. My bet is that EADS was confident in being less and was wrong.

[Edited 2011-02-25 11:01:47 by srbmod]

User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3411 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 24959 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 24):
It was more expensive, especially since it was based on a lease and not a purchase. Cars are more expensive in the long run if you go the lease/purchase route.

Thats the funny thing, the lease with buyout would have been cheaper than either of the KC-X bids. Not as good of an aircraft as the KC46, but definitely cheaper.


User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 25381 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):

I was agnostic in this whole thing, but I do find it hillarious to see Airbus Aficiandoes acting as silly as they accused Boeing Boosters of doing when EADS won the last RFP.

Yep. But what they are all failing to realize is; it's quite possibly a good thing for EADS that they lost this bid. Boeing now has to deal with another distraction (this contract) with margins that have been squeezed due to the 3x bidding process. EADS meaning does not have to:

Deal with constant attention and changes and hand holding US military deals require
Deal with the ongoing political mess
Build brand new facilities and hire brand new workers who are 6 hours (on the clock) and 8 hours by plane away
Ramp a whole new management team to execute
Worry about potential penalties for not delivering
Not have to worry about the fact that there is strong doubt the whole award will end up going through (i.e. I doubt when all is said and done given budgets the order will amount to much more than 100 planes).

In fact I would wager EADS is maybe even mildly relieved to have not "won" this deal given the above. They've now effectively tied up more Boeing resources (at a time when Boeing is already arguable overwhelmed) and at the end of the day the loss of profit is probably minimal for them.

There is no winner in this deal other than the people that will get to fly around in aircraft that are less than 50 years old as a result of the deal finally being awarded one way or the other.

[Edited 2011-02-25 11:02:26 by srbmod]


I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6674 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 25327 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
I guess we should ask Pratt how they feel about being denied a shot at the A400M propulsion contract so a European option could be selected - and then flounder for years... *shrug*

Well, I don't see the problem. They were denied a shot, they were not offered one only to make it appear as an open and fair competition.

About the fact that McCain saved taxpayers money or not, what about the corruption involved in the first contract, don't you Americans care ?



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 25366 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 28):
Well, I don't see the problem. They were denied a shot, they were not offered one only to make it appear as an open and fair competition.

Can you *prove* in any way shape or form that the EADS bid was solely for the 'appearance' of open and fair competition? If you can't prove it your argument above holds no merit whatsoever.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 28):

About the fact that McCain saved taxpayers money or not, what about the corruption involved in the first contract, don't you Americans care ?

Apparently they care about as much as "you Europeans" care about over paying for a military cargo aircraft that has been funded solely because it is 'of our national interest to keep this program going, and it must be saved at all costs'. Before you start throwing attack at "Americans" and what they do and don't care about, you should first turn the magnifying glass on yourself and your country.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
25 BlueSky1976 : Congratulations to Boeing on winning this contract. However, I do hope EADS protests - just to make it as difficult for Boeing to finalize the contrac
26 Post contains images bikerthai : I read somewhere that the first of the KC-46 will be operational 2017. Seems like a long time . . . but probably not really given the way scheduling
27 Aesma : If there is corruption involved in the A400M mess, I'm not aware. As far as military programs overrunning costs, they all do, I think you should know
28 Post contains images sasd209 : And in turn make it more difficult for the pilots who fly tanker missions to *finally* get a new A/C? And as far as obsolete - A new-build A/C that h
29 Revelation : I think it's naive to assume that politics did not enter into the requirements writing process. The major characterstics of both the A330MRT and KC76
30 par13del : As already mentioned, McCain did more harm to Boeing, the US Aerospace industry and the US tax payors by his decision, since he coudl not control the
31 PolymerPlane : Price is a little bit misleading. IIRC according to the RFP, it wasn't the price difference that decides the award, rather it was overall cost accoun
32 Stitch : The original lease deal, which members flying European flags have been lambasting for going on eight years now, was in fact written so as to deny EAD
33 aerobalance : Explain that please. Why should you worry what I care about?
34 BoeEngr : Is that why they chose to require a boom with an offload rate higher than what the previous 767 could do, but which matched what the A330 could do? T
35 ferpe : 35B$ is a LOT of money, I can understand that one want that to be spent on ones own industry. Congratulations to Boeing and all who gets to work with
36 Post contains links FRAspotter : Will the new tanker be based on the 762, 763, or 764? CNN Money had a mock up photo showing a KC-46 refueling 2 fighter jets and the length looked to
37 Post contains images astuteman : Give me a break. BAE Inc isn't an outsider Agree Congratulations to Boeing. I suspect that the story still has legs yet, though. Rgds
38 Renfro747 : It will be the fuselage of the -200, and if I recall correctly, the wings of the -300ER and the flight deck based on the -400. Congratulations to Boe
39 FRAspotter : Wow! Are they building an airplane or Frankenstein's monster?
40 BMI727 : The 763 and 764 are both too long to have clearance for the boom and decent field performance. Same as the P-8, which is the 737-800 fuselage with -9
41 Post contains images propilot83 : I got a Boeing bumper sticker, yea Baby, go Boeing! Forever Boeing!
42 cosmofly : I seem to recall 200 fuse, 400 wing, 787 display.
43 Stitch : Did Boeing pitch the KC-767 Advanced (the "Frankentanker") for this latest RFP, as well, or did they roll back to something a bit more conservative?
44 ThePointblank : Though for the Boeing P-8, the base airframe was already developed as the BBJ2. Here, Boeing will have to develop the base airframe basically from sc
45 XT6Wagon : No, They are all parts of the same family. There will be very little design work to do outside of the new cockpit. While its not quite legos, the -40
46 ebbuk : I love the way the Americans and the Europeans dictate free market ideals on the developing world, yet continue protectionism in their own backyards.
47 oldeuropean : Don't count your chickens before they're hatched.
48 JTR : I just want this whole saga to be over - I'll be happy when the protest window closes.
49 chuchoteur : The first competition should not be used as a point of reference. Sure had it gone right, the USAF would have a tanker flying today, and probably che
50 Post contains images Stitch : So Boeing's management orchestrated the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent collapse of world air travel for a period of years? Damn, I'
51 Ken777 : And it would have been flying now in some numbers. I think that the USAF might be a bit surprised on this side. They have a fixed cost for a fixed pr
52 Danny : It'a EADS fault that politicians were always going to give this to Bowing no matter what? I'm just surprised that EADS wasted so much time and resour
53 rheinwaldner : Congratulations to Boeing! A sharp price was the trick!
54 Post contains images chuchoteur : LoL No, Boeing's management placed the company in a situation where it had difficulties handling a downturn (regardless of the origin of that downtur
55 GDB : NAV20, you might want to ask the Italian AF about tanker delays, based on a more straightforward 767-200 as well.
56 flyglobal : So congrats to Boeing. no need for EADS to protest unless there would be some evidence that Boeing had a very very secret last call to manage the pric
57 Post contains images Stitch : Well you can't truly say "no matter what" since they did win the RFP when the USAF helped cook the numbers (via the "extra credits"). True, but the A
58 PlanesNTrains : It's been amazing reading this thread and the comments that seem to ignore that fact. It's like when I hire an employee and it doesn't work out. "You
59 lh526 : From what I've heard from pilots and engineers, Boeing aircraft tend to be more rugged designed, with wider tolerances and "easier" to maintain .. cou
60 Burkhard : Congratulations to the Air Force that there is a chance they really get these planes now. Congratulations to Boeing for getting this order. Congratula
61 bj87 : This outcome definitely isn't a shocker. I agree, especially considering the economic recession and the need for Boeing to get some cash flow to be ab
62 Post contains links GDB : Sitch, yes the Italian AF have now got their first KC-767, just that it's 5 years late; http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-first-delayed-kc-767a-
63 par13del : The US Airforce is made up of individuals who volunteer to serve their country in the military, it is not some private company who you just throw of
64 Post contains images na : So the US Forces ordered a facelifted Ford Model T Hardly a surprise, patriotism before modernism is the parole. When the US ordered the predecessor,
65 Post contains images NAV20 : Point is, to me, GDB, that the 767-based tanker is out of the woods now. The A330 equivalent is still 'feeling its way.' Don't forget, from the descr
66 MD11Engineer : Exactly. Bad luck for the American taxpayer. It has been shown that, if in doubt, the hometeam will always win. The same happens over here with EADS
67 billreid : The economic side is monumental. A French citizen, and AF employee asked me Tuesday why the US would ever consider the A330. The logic was completely
68 CALTECH : Congratulations to Boeing. What a great tanker plane she will be. EADS had a good plane too. Condolences to EADS. This time it should be done.
69 Post contains images EPA001 : I agree in general with this, but bad luck? Due to the competition the USAF is getting much more then ever anticipated and at lower prices. So the fa
70 Post contains images EPA001 : Read in the Tech/Ops department. More and more pilots nowadays (>50%) prefer the extra qualities the Airbus cockpit offers them. The most old scho
71 PITingres : If if flies well and performs its job? Gratefully. The USAF was supposed to pick the best tanker for the job. Presumably that job is refuelling. Bein
72 travelavnut : Congratulations to Boeing on this massive order!! The amount of "programming" between Boeing's philosophy and that of Airbus is probarbly the same. A
73 vfw614 : That was probably the last time the US tax payer was that lucky. Wouldn't be surprised if EADS now puts the USAF in the same category as Ryanair and
74 NAV20 : VERY interesting point, billreid. However, by 'AF' did you mean 'Air France' or 'Air Force'? I assume 'Air Force.' Also struck by your reference to '
75 KC135TopBoom : You do know the DOD still buys new build Browning .50 caliber HMG M-2 and M-3 versions. That design dates back to 1919, Itself an up-caiber version o
76 KC135TopBoom : Actually, during refueling the tanker is not limited by manuvers like turns, climbs, and decents. The tanker does not have to fly straight and level.
77 NAV20 : Interesting, KC135TopBoom. Not my field, obviously - but is it all done by 'electronic guidance' nowadays?
78 Post contains images bikerthai : Wider tolerances makes for a less efficient structure. The tighter the tolerance, allow for easier assembly with fewer mis-matches and better lifetim
79 Post contains images EPA001 : The 9 year is misleading here. The B767 was the last of the old school wide-bodies where the A330 is representing the second generation of civilian F
80 Venus6971 : Lets not forget that the south is getting a Boeing plant in Charleston and the USAF has been invited by Congress to testify on their selection by comm
81 BoeEngr : The 767 proposed in this competition was considerably different from the plane proposed in the last competition, and was indeed cheaper.
82 Post contains links Revelation : Above I wondered why EADS even bothered to stay in the contest. After reading a few things, it's clear that if nothing else, EADS has learned a lot ab
83 PC12Fan : I'm not saying you're wrong. The comparison being made here by most is that Boeing is proposing the Wright Flyer whereas EADS is proposing the greate
84 Aesma : If there were corrupt people in the USAF, I don't see how it's McCain fault, and exposing them should be a good thing. Well, back when Boeing won tha
85 11Bravo : No, what's misleading here is your entire premise that the B767-200 and the A330-200 are analogs and should be analysed and compared to each other as
86 VS11 : Maybe someone can enlighten me but from a purely conceptual point, in view of the mission profile for the tanker planes, why wouldn't you want to get
87 Post contains images EPA001 : I don't think you are wrong either. . In all sentiments which are attached to this whole, rather ugly tanker dossier, people will always exaggerate o
88 Post contains images bikerthai : For the KC-Y competition, the 777 will eat the A330 for lunch. Let that debate begin. Boeing already have a shop (both engineering and production) in
89 Flighty : I tend to agree with you. But, in airlines, you prefer a 762 in cases when it performs 100% of your mission goal at lower cost (and with a smaller ch
90 B2707SST : A tanker can only refuel one plane at a time (in USAF boom configuration), so even if it is more efficient in terms of fuel burn per gallon offloaded
91 Post contains images chuchoteur : Replacing the KC10, given that aircraft's fuel and payload capability, there isn't really anything in the Airbus lineup that would match... aside fro
92 Post contains images redflyer : In the short term, EADS might be better off and at an advantage with Boeing now being burdened and distracted with yet another product to develop; ho
93 Stitch : And if EADS had won, and the 767 line closed, meaning that when it comes time to replace all those other 787-based airframes (E-3, E-8, EC-135, etc.)
94 redflyer : A340-500.
95 Revelation : Yes, that was my thinking too. And, as above, one imagines EADS has learned a lot about how USAF does tanker selection now. So, next time round, they
96 GDB : It does seem to make logical sense, if you are about replacing KC-135's as part of a (huge!) mixed fleet of tanker/transport assets, to go with the 76
97 bmacleod : Good for Boeing to come from behind and pull out a win in this long drawn-out and nasty fight. Hope the "Buy American" clause in the 2009 stimulus bil
98 Post contains links XT6Wagon : McCain is part of the overall effort put into influencing the outcome of the 2008 bid. He sent a letter to the USAF and the next day he received $$$$
99 11Bravo : Along these same lines, I hope Boeing and the DoD take another look at engines for the KC-46A. It would seem the GEnx units (GEnx-2B67) developed for
100 Post contains images EPA001 : That would be something. . But by the time the KC10 needs to be replaced there are multiple options. The A340-500 (the best ever looking wide-body ai
101 mham001 : Different worlds I guess, but I can't see why a plane that needs to fly around a tank of fuel needs to be state-of-the-art. There's one running aroun
102 VS11 : Thanks B2707SST! The points you mention are indeed valid and pertinent and I hadn't thought of them. In fact, when empty the A332 is heavier than B76
103 XT6Wagon : Worse, the better a modern plane is at passenger duty the worse it is for tanker duty. Fuel doesn't need seating room, so obviously the best tankers
104 EPA001 : The couple of tankers they built for Italy (2) and Japan (3) were all up to 5 years late, and by far not that good as anticipated/promised. Also the
105 kanban : as I read the original, I felt that the issue was design robustness and the wider tolerances were both allowances for repair and flight characteristi
106 Post contains images redflyer : I'm not so sure. I think if the A330 production line is still open, and it should be for at least another decade, Airbus should be able to shove a fe
107 Stitch : Nice to see at least somebody across The Pond gets it. It's clear that many Europeans on this board are upset that "their" plane didn't win, but in y
108 bikerthai : What you are referring to is margins. Example: typical design allow for 2D edge margins for holes. If you tighten up your tolerances, you have more m
109 Post contains images chuchoteur : Oh don't worry, a lot of us europeans are fine with the way it turned out, we're just not the ones posting To be fair the B vs E debate is over, it's
110 Post contains images 328JET : To be honest, besides possibly EADS, nobody in europe really believed in a real chance in this contest. And, i believ most a.net users from both side
111 affirmative : I congratulate Boeing. EADS had set their hopes a bit too high. And now the contract went to the home team, just as everyone thought in the beginning.
112 Stitch : They sure didn't feel that way before the decision based on their posts. The bid criteria were clear and both parties were given the chance to commen
113 Venus6971 : So I wonder if this will get the E-10 out of storage?
114 328JET : I always "voted" for two-supplier solution here on a.net, because i see the two aircrafts as very different offers. Both are far from perfect as a re
115 Post contains links and images Revelation : Wiki sez: Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-10_MC2A So, there's no physical E-10 in storage any more, and the money got cut 3 budget cycles ago. So
116 GDB : I think most on 'this side of the Pond' were very surprised first time around, when KC-45 was selected. It gave the impression, real or not, of the US
117 Stitch : Agreed. I believe the A330 MRTT would make a solid KC-10A replacement, as I believe the 777 Freighter is too much plane. If the KC-30A had won this r
118 glideslope : You'll see Congress Involved when the T-50 snatches the USAF Trainer from BAE.
119 Flighty : A politician is the commander-in-chief. It seems you are not willing to use much imagination. In a prostitution case, do the police need to present a
120 Post contains images bikerthai : Well, I don't know if the South can absorb two new wide body aircraft production line in such a short time The Charleston site will putting out more
121 wolbo : I would say it is very naive and, in fact, rather disingenuous. This was a political decision pure and simple and as all political decisions it will
122 kanban : I think that is what the initial poster was referring to as well... sometimes in translations between languages and professions one ends up with inco
123 GDB : You think the Hawk has much of a chance? If this competition was being run 15-20 years ago, in the wake of it winning the USN contract, I'd say it wa
124 Stitch : With the exception of Washington, Grant and Eisenhower, when as a politician not been the Commander in Chief? George Bush was a politician and EADS w
125 titanmiller : Try tanker autopilot off on a moonless night in clouds and turbulence during a 30º turn with a poorly flying boom and an unstable receiver pilot. Li
126 redflyer : Don't forget there were plenty of politicians here in the U.S. that were pushing for an EADS win. And in that regard, the best friend EADS has here i
127 par13del : This became political when the US Air Force decided to have a competition for an off the shelf product to replace the KC-135 when no off the shelf pr
128 Post contains images DEVILFISH : If the were forthcoming. More likely with the M-346 and that putative trainer Boeing was talking up. But these belong to the other thread.[Edited 201
129 Stitch : So did Pratt win the powerplant contract? I know Boeing originally pitched the KC-767A with Pratt power, but I had heard that the USAF was going to aw
130 Post contains links sasd209 : According to this, Pratt won with the PW-4000 series engine: http://www.courant.com/business/hc-t...-decision-20110224,0,2626070.story[Edited 2011-02
131 Stitch : Ah, thanks. Good news for Pratt (I'm sure Lightsaber is happy), but I guess this means GE will not be doing any improvements to the CF6-80 nor will t
132 Garpd : All these sour grape posts are to be expected. They were inevitable regardless who won. Many EU airlines order exclusively Airbus. No one at all is su
133 Post contains images Stitch : It certainly fit the needs, as it passed all of the mandatory requirements. What tripped it up was the total cost. Boeing sharpened their pencils a b
134 Post contains images Osiris30 : Your own response serves as a valid retort to your first quoted statement above, namely the 400M smacks of backroom dealings and corruption from this
135 autothrust : I don't see how US tax payers or the USAF are anyhow the winners; they get an outdated, mostly untested and delayed tanker for less money?? The only
136 Greaser : Exactly! Besides being >1% cheaper, Boeing's option appears to be a better fit, given the size of the -135, and its capabilities. The A330 would p
137 Revelation : I'm not directing this at any one person, but I must say that one of the most puzzling a.net features is the "gee, they must be relieved to have lost
138 Osiris30 : It's not about 'not enough work' Both companies have backlogs that stretch into the 'many' years range. On the 737 alone Boeing has something like 7
139 Post contains images Stitch : Delayed as it was, the KC-767 is now in customer hands - something that cannot be said for the A330 MRTT. And "thanks" to those delays, the KC-767 ha
140 sasd209 : Since I've not been following the tech aspects of this as close as I should have been, are there metrics to support this statement, or is it an opini
141 kanban : as so many others before, the idea that the tanker competes like a commercial airliner seems to cloud thinking.. .. likewise when you need a Fiat 600
142 XT6Wagon : Its his opinion and its a wrong one. The KC-135R rarely takes off with a full load of fuel and rarely returns at minimum reserves. The KC-46 will bur
143 GDB : They certainly did with the UK, many thought conversions of BA 767-300's would get that one, BA did a pile of work on this to assist the main bidder
144 328JET : Less fuel than a KC135 with four CFM engines? I am not so sure about it.
145 Garpd : You'll get no argument from me on that.
146 Post contains images autothrust : Yeah... for how long some months?Why again it was 5 year delayed?? flutter of the wing pods and other technical problems anyone? Really proven. Doubt
147 328JET : 10 percent is the difference.
148 daedaeg : Well i'm glad my tax dollars are going to the hometeam. This is the largest aircraft order by the U.S. military and should support the U.S. industry.
149 Revelation : It could very well be, but IMHO it's neigh on impossible to figure that out without all kinds of insider data and the skills to interpret it. At a su
150 Post contains images kmz : this questions was probably asked before, but i haven't found it in this thread, so i'll still ask does anybody have an idea about the emount of effor
151 mayor : You do realize that much of the flying is done by Air Force Reserve crews and many of those pilots have jobs as airline pilots? So, there's a good ch
152 Post contains images EPA001 : I do realize that, but my comments were made in a more generic way. The more pilots that have flown on the bus, the higher percentage of pilots favor
153 Osiris30 : I think it will be telling if we see EADS appeal. I'm guessing that after this round being price driven both companies put in bids with far less marg
154 mayor : I know of some pilots that prefer to fly the plane and not let the plane fly them.
155 b741 : Good show for Boeing, but I will soon miss seeing an occasional KC-135 in my travels!
156 Ken777 : It might be interesting to see how the USAF looks at the 787 in 5 to 7 years. They will have their initial deliveries on the KC-46 and Boeing will ha
157 Post contains links Revelation : I can't answer that directly. From earlier threads, it's clear that the original displays are quite costly to procure because they are very old tech
158 Stitch : I doubt the Secretary pulled them out of his arse since he had the numbers from both Boeing and EADS to compare. And true, it was not the only cost d
159 BMI727 : That's the sort of jingoistic attitude that makes the Europeans cry foul. You should be glad that your tax dollars are going to get our servicemen th
160 Stitch : It has to be pretty cheap to build a 767 by now. All of the tooling should be totally paid off, the machinists should be able to put it together in t
161 Post contains images PC12Fan : Except for the case where the 767 got nearly 200 units ordered and will in all probability will get more. What was that deal again? Oh yea!!.........
162 328JET : I know some of these guys as well. But i also know a lot more which accepted, after initial concerns, that a lot of tasks can be done better "by the
163 bikerthai : LOL, it has been the general concensus that given the same amount of thrust, 2 engines are more efficient than 4 engines. They will only look at it i
164 rheinwaldner : No, the KC-135 will fly until 2040. Many have advocated (fearing the KC-30) to let it fly even longer. If the KC-767 once will be as old as the KC-13
165 XT6Wagon : I missed how the KC30 has 5% more booms than the KC767. The real limit to the KC30 and KC767 is they have just one boom like the KC135. You are also
166 rheinwaldner : The figure is just an example. We can be sure that the A330 is better than 5% in most metrics than the 767. If I remember correctly a tanker ... - ha
167 PITingres : I'd have to say that you have been mis-informed, then. The job of a tanker is to carry the amount of fuel needed for the mission. Less is obviously b
168 328JET : Hmm, i believe you are on the wrong way... The thrust is not equal and the a/c weights are not equal as well... The KC135 has already the CFM56 on bo
169 Post contains images bikerthai : I see your point . . . someone with more time would have to calculate the numbers. Some one probably already has in one of the tanker thread somewher
170 daedaeg : I'm not too concerned about what people think of where my tax dollars should or shouldn't go. They'll cry and then they'll get over it. Look I have n
171 AirRyan : That Sir, is todays modern USAF. I'm glad Boeing won, but embarrassed for they and the USAF for the way in which they carried forth on this whole thi
172 XT6Wagon : NO, It couldn't have won. IT FAILED MANDITORY REQUIREMENTS. How the heck do you say that it should win when it didn't meet the minimum requirements.
173 rheinwaldner : You could be right about this one. But for Y3 Boeing probably would prefer to use some of the more revolutionary engine technologies that will be rea
174 PITingres : Sigh. YES, it CAN be right. Refer to my pizza delivery example again. Delivered-pizza stores and long haul trucking companies have the same goal: tra
175 Revelation : And yet A330MRTT customers are "suffering" with those same technology premises, yet we don't hear them being slagged for it. A330MRTT may have its al
176 Post contains images kanban : and the 330 isn't alum tube and wing???? therefore by an esteemed posters logic, 150 years old????? I suppose we go even further that any plane that
177 Revelation : No one has the moral high ground on technology. And the same can be said for delivering on time: Vs.
178 titanmiller : The KC-135 averages about 10,000lb/hr fuel burn on a typical mission profile. I have no idea what a 767 burns.[Edited 2011-02-28 14:51:41]
179 ThePointblank : So, an issue with an arguably, more simpler version that bears very minimal resemblance to the final configuration of the selected aircraft which inc
180 billreid : No I was referring to French Nationals who work for Air France. My point is that I was told they prefer B to AB strictly from a pilot perspective, wh
181 Post contains images rheinwaldner : But the weigth of the carried product is different by several orders of magnitude. The same applies to the range. So I can't accept your example as a
182 Max Q : The 762 burns 9-10000 pounds an hour. This will probably be improved on with the tanker.
183 PolymerPlane : Wrong. Tanker's job is not hauling fuel from location A to location B. Its job is to haul fuel and transfer it to other aircraft in the air, through
184 par13del : Funny thing is that when that idiot - US Air Force - awarded the contract to NG/EADS they were intelligent and doing what was in the best interest of
185 Post contains images scbriml : All of them? It tells us exactly the same as those American pilots that have a preference for Airbus. In other words, nothing. Really don't see how t
186 par13del : I would still like to get all the details, somehow after they bid by themselves EADS / NA thought they had a competitive bid, posters even mentioned
187 Post contains images PITingres : No! And by the way, the point under argument is whether a BIGGER airliner is a better tanker. For two identically sized frames, one would obviously e
188 Post contains images EPA001 : Indeed, as I also have written before, more and more pilots like the Airbus cockpit philosophy better then a conventional cockpit layout. But many pi
189 chuchoteur : Comparisons in a commercial airline environment are not always applicable to military requirements. In the commercial airline market, what you want t
190 Revelation : Actually, I advocated upgrading KC-135E to KC-135R to maximize the lifespan of the KC-135 fleet so that their renewal would be with CFRP planes. This
191 bikerthai : And if Boeing can parley this win in to some international sales (and get better margin) then it would be worth the effort. bikerthai
192 scbriml : We all would, but I suspect most of us will be disappointed. Unless the difference in the evaluated costs is released into the public domain, we'll n
193 Post contains links scbriml : EADS NA has now been debriefed by the Air Force. http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/02/28/eads-mum-on-tanker-debrief/ They now have, by my estimate, until Su
194 pnwtraveler : Asside from where posters reside, I also agree with this. Smaller airforces need flexibility and multimission capability has a much greater importanc
195 moose135 : Remember, also, that the requirements for a tanker were changing drastically when the KC-135 was introduced. The rapid expansion of a jet-powered Air
196 XT6Wagon : If there is, you can bet the project is top secret and has the funding to build any required specialised tankers required for it. I doubt there is, b
197 rcair1 : No, no, no and no. It has to - Carry the right amount for the mission - carrying more wastes fuel - The distance required for the mission - having mo
198 Post contains links AirRyan : Boeing won because Norm Dicks forced the USAF to change the parameters in how they calculated the long-term consumption of fuel, from 25 years to 40 y
199 Post contains images Stitch : Well chances are the planes will be in service for 40 years, so why not get an accurate representation of the costs involved in operating the fleet t
200 XT6Wagon : EADS should have been jumping for joy at the extention. It then spreads the costs of updating the bases across 40 years instead of 25. So it takes th
201 kanban : difficult to figure out what the issue is here... Norm Dicks, who you don't know and doesn't represent Texas, Curtis LeMay who retired before you wer
202 Post contains images redflyer : The receiver aircraft at the dawn of the age of the KC-135 were also primarily bombers. That is why the USAF ordered an almost similar number of copi
203 Post contains images scbriml : I don't think that makes any difference to the final evaluated cost. If it costs $150million for changes to a base, that's what it costs and that's w
204 Post contains links Revelation : And not own the tankers at the end of the lease period. Leases always suck for something you want to keep for a long time. I don't know the numbers f
205 bikerthai : Ah, but Norm Dicks do not serve the USAF. Norm Dicks serves the people of his district. And the people of his district wants Boeing to win. And if th
206 chuchoteur : c.f. the Royal Air Force C17 lease... they've exploded the flight hours on the original lease, so they're probably into overtime payments, although I
207 redflyer : I don't have time to research the terms of the original lease, but I do believe at the end of the term the USAF could buy them for a ridiculously low
208 Post contains links redflyer : Looks as though EADS is leaning towards accepting the outcome of the process: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...03/usa-tanker-idUSN03959302011030
209 Post contains links Revelation : http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32056.pdf says IMHO time has shown that there was no need to throw Boeing a bone (it all was just post-9/11 hysteria) and
210 SEPilot : As others have said, this is not true at all. Just as all airlines cannot effectively use the A380, even though it offers the best CASM in the indust
211 AirRyan : More booms? The USAF numbers of fighters and aircraft overall are only declining, and not all KC-135 will be replaced on a 1 for 1 basis. The USAF doe
212 Stitch : Let us also not forget that the USAF was receptive to a lease (heck, they may have been the ones to propose it) because Congress was not about to fund
213 Flighty : That was Boeing's political theory, but it wasn't received so well in the end. The purpose of leasing is usually to rent a fungible good (like a popu
214 Post contains links Revelation : Interesting post action report and (partial) mea culpa from Loren Thompson at: http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2011.../28/how-boeing-won-the-tanker-wa
215 Post contains images EPA001 : Yes it is and it's a shame that people like Loren Thompson still throw these nonsense around. Not that it matters now, but the A330 has zero subsidy
216 panais : I am wondering if this could have been the case if they offered another platform such as the A321? The A321 as is might not have been able to meet re
217 Post contains links chuchoteur : http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/201...tailleurs-eads-ne-conteste-pas.php Official now, EADS will not appeal the Tanker decision. Right call I think,
218 redflyer : This is not news. When the file mix-up occurred a few months back, word had come out that the evaluation seemed to be leaning towards the EADS bid. A
219 Stitch : The A321-200 might not have met all the bid requirements. Or he could have noted that Airbus still has to pay a royalty on every A330 delivery.
220 Post contains links PolymerPlane : http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/bu...ess/global/05tanker.html?src=busln The TEP difference was about 10%. So it was a clear winner by Boeing.
221 cosmofly : And the tax payers saved 16B when compared to Boeing's first offer. Not bad.
222 PolymerPlane : No, TEP = Purchase price - IFARA adjustment difference - milcon difference - fuel difference. The actual money paid to Boeing (purchase price) is sti
223 panais : Well for a price of $115m per airplane for the KC-46 to beat, I am sure that Airbus would have been able to meet all requirements. Let this be a less
224 RoseFlyer : The KC135 has double the payload of an A321, so I can't imagine it meeting the minimum requirements. Also, fuel is heavy but does not take up much sp
225 Post contains images Revelation : And the KC-135R by definition has approximately twice the thrust, since it four CFM56s installed on it.
226 EPA001 : That would not have changed the principal. The A320-series is a real cash-cow; not only for Airbus but also for the government providing RLI to devel
227 EPA001 : Good for them (they do not smear their image like Boeing did 2-3 years ago) and it will increase their chances in further bids, though these should a
228 LHRBlueskies : Once again politics wins, common sense loses. Never mind. What's next on the horizon...???!!
229 Post contains images kanban : we can only hope, but then they're French....
230 Post contains images tarheelwings : How exactly did Boeing smear their image? They protested and the GAO agreed with them that the process was flawed.....do you really think that if EAD
231 EPA001 : The protest by itself was OK. But all the rhetoric and the whole media campaign by Boeing and its supporters which was full of playing on false senti
232 PolymerPlane : Oh come on. You are making it as if EADS and its minions are saints while Boeing and its supporters are whores. Both sides enganged in the publicity/
233 USAF336TFS : Tough loss there EPA. I'm one of those Boeing supporters you spoke about. Please - I'd like to see exactly what Boeing "lied" about. Did they "lie" wh
234 Post contains images EPA001 : Your words, not mine, I never said such things nor did I wanted to communicate this picture. And of course EADS-NA and NG reacted with their own camp
235 Post contains images EPA001 : I do not have any doubts about that. But I still think the offer from the competition would have been even a bit better. . But I am also glad this me
236 PolymerPlane : The frankentanker cartoon came in 1 month before the round 2 award (begining 2008). The spider chart came from mid 2007. Who started it? That's proba
237 Post contains images EPA001 : And it was 100% true to a fault. . I was referring to the behavior of Boeing and their financed whining media campaign only after they lost (which th
238 Post contains links Venus6971 : Here is a link that describes it well and to the point for guys who did not go to Wharton. http://www.industryweek.com/articles...ker_wars_why_boeing_
239 USAF336TFS : Apparently common sense is different depending on which side of the Pond you're on. Some of us believe that finally common sense prevailed...
240 WarRI1 : Thanks for that link. Once again, bigger is not always better. I think that idea that was repeated on here many times. I am glad the USAF finally agr
241 kanban : should we request the thread be closed since this story is over?.... the topic is exhausted until the first test unit begins assembly ...
242 Post contains links bjorn14 : Apparently EADS will not appeal the contract awarded http://www.seattlepi.com/local/6420ap_us_air_tanker_fight.html
243 Post contains images Revelation : There, I fixed it for you! Unless you were talking about the 2008 competition, where politics almost won and common sense was ignored.
244 BlueSky1976 : This shows EADS having more class than Boeing and their lobbyists had after their loss in previous competition.
245 bikerthai : Or in a more cynical point of view . . . the EADS lobbyists were not as experienced or effective as the Boeing lobbyists. Politics, even in a democra
246 Post contains links mffoda : Or, maybe politics played a smaller role then some are speculating on this thread... And it had more to do with the Cost $? http://www.aviationweek.co
247 Revelation : Either that, or it shows they had absolutely no grounds for appeal and they didn't want to lose twice in a row in quick succession. Somehow NG figure
248 Oroka : Why exactly is it going to take 4 years to get the prototypes flying? Isnt this tanker going to be based on the KC-767 Boeing is delivering right now,
249 bikerthai : It's going to take about 3-6 months to man up Engineering staff. 1-2 years for designing and integrating the new configuration. Even if there is not
250 kanban : Boeing did not preorder the long lead items... example: landing gear is roughly 3 years from casting to delivery..even if there is no change..
251 tristarsteve : Or was EADS trying to push Boeings price so low that they won't make much money from it all? I think the US taxpayer should be happy that EADS stayed
252 Post contains links and images AirRyan : How was the probability of risk weighed into this RFP versus previous RFP's, I could have sworn it was far more taken into account in the previous rou
253 nomadd22 : You mean as opposed to Airbus' stellar record on the A400? If the Air Force had considered performance history with large programs like that, Airbus
254 Post contains images EPA001 : Do not mix up things here. The A400 delays have nothing to do with the technology used on the plane and in the project, and have everything to do wit
255 Post contains images PC12Fan : Politics had a hand in it, but common sense was the deciding factor. End of story - period. The KC-46 met all requirements whereas the KC-45 didn't.
256 Stitch : AirRyan's posting history has long been negative towards Boeing and the blogger is from Alabama, so is it a surprise they both are disappointed in a B
257 EPA001 : And that engine was a political choice by far not favoured by Airbus for the program. That, combined with design changes forced upon them by the resp
258 EPA001 : Since all military projects are usually way over budget, (and especially in the US) at the cost of the tax payer, I can not follow the logic in this
259 Post contains images bikerthai : But rehashing issue can be useful for those new to the forum. Besides don't dish him because he's from Alabama To answer his question: There are tech
260 USAF336TFS : Hey AirRyan, Nice cartoon. Not very imaginative in my view, and the facts completely negate the cartoon's message, but let's not let the facts get in
261 chuchoteur : well not so sure, as Airbus have experience in transferring assembly facilities - c.f. Tianjin production line. The ramp-up over there was pretty muc
262 bikerthai : Boeing has a good Engineering group in Huntsville. They do build some hardware there but I bet they can use some more work their way. Neither am I, b
263 Ken777 : This risk is with any military item that has a technology factor in it. All you have to do is follow the explosive growth of technology in the PC ind
264 USAF336TFS : I'm sure you're right bikerthai but throwing the biggest U.S. exporter under the proverbial bus isn't going to help. Hey Senator Sessions and Shelby,
265 bikerthai : Yes, there's politics, and there's partisan politics. If they were "good" politicians, they would have found a way to sweet talk both companies at th
266 Post contains images astuteman : That's not an argument with a very long shelf life, to be honest.... Correct. The way the US Government handles its defence contractors makes the Eur
267 Post contains images kanban : it's called fixed price + or - 40%
268 par13del : You are probably correct but if such technological improvements are put in place by the US Air Force on a fixed price contract with fix profit margin
269 Post contains links queb : First firm order for the KC-46A : http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm
270 bikerthai : If you are counting off-the shelf a/c as a way to reduce cost, then it is not a sham. Compare the P-8A program with the Japanese P-X (I know the quan
271 XT6Wagon : systems upgrades can be cheaper too, as Boeing is more likely to foot the bill on the civilian side of the deal so that they can use those same upgra
272 Ken777 : The frame isn't the issue - it is the technology inside the frame. Electronics and computer systems top the list. No branch of the military can keep
273 queb : According to David Hess, P&W president, via Jon Ostrower (Flightblogger) Twitter account, the PW4062 engine for the 767/KC-46A will get a 2-3% imp
274 CMB56 : From what I have seen Boeing is planning to use the cockpit display system from the 787. That alone is a major upgrade to the capabilities and future
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Usaf Mixes Up KC-X Tanker Bid Information posted Fri Nov 19 2010 19:33:33 by wolbo
KC-X Tanker Saga Continues posted Fri May 14 2010 19:49:05 by Beta
2010 KC-X Tanker ModernizationRFP Released posted Thu Feb 25 2010 02:03:47 by Zeke
2009 KC-X Tanker Part II posted Sun Nov 1 2009 12:08:45 by Scbriml
2009 KC-X Tanker Modernization Program posted Fri Sep 25 2009 06:58:58 by Zeke
KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled! posted Wed Sep 10 2008 06:40:05 by Observer
KC-X Tanker Rebid - Part 2 posted Fri Sep 5 2008 03:40:43 by Scbriml
KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008 posted Tue Aug 5 2008 16:23:34 by Tugger
Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs. posted Tue Jun 17 2008 17:25:31 by Columbia107
Boeing Co Tanker Blog posted Tue Mar 18 2008 06:04:21 by Stratofortress
Official STS-129 Atlantis Shuttle Mission Thread posted Sun Sep 13 2009 05:51:33 by ZANL188
Official STS-128 Discovery Shuttle Mission Thread posted Fri Aug 21 2009 19:16:50 by BEG2IAH
Official STS-127 Endeavour Shuttle Mission Thread posted Sun May 24 2009 11:57:31 by ZANL188
Official STS-119 Discovery Shuttle Mission Thread posted Mon Jan 19 2009 00:18:29 by SNA350
It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767 posted Mon Feb 12 2007 19:42:52 by USAF336TFS
KC-X Tanker Saga Continues posted Fri May 14 2010 19:49:05 by Beta
2010 KC-X Tanker ModernizationRFP Released posted Thu Feb 25 2010 02:03:47 by Zeke
2009 KC-X Tanker Part II posted Sun Nov 1 2009 12:08:45 by Scbriml
2009 KC-X Tanker Modernization Program posted Fri Sep 25 2009 06:58:58 by Zeke
Official STS-129 Atlantis Shuttle Mission Thread posted Sun Sep 13 2009 05:51:33 by ZANL188
Official STS-128 Discovery Shuttle Mission Thread posted Fri Aug 21 2009 19:16:50 by BEG2IAH
Official STS-127 Endeavour Shuttle Mission Thread posted Sun May 24 2009 11:57:31 by ZANL188
Official STS-119 Discovery Shuttle Mission Thread posted Mon Jan 19 2009 00:18:29 by SNA350
2010 KC-X Tanker ModernizationRFP Released posted Thu Feb 25 2010 02:03:47 by Zeke
2009 KC-X Tanker Part II posted Sun Nov 1 2009 12:08:45 by Scbriml
2009 KC-X Tanker Modernization Program posted Fri Sep 25 2009 06:58:58 by Zeke
Official STS-129 Atlantis Shuttle Mission Thread posted Sun Sep 13 2009 05:51:33 by ZANL188
Official STS-128 Discovery Shuttle Mission Thread posted Fri Aug 21 2009 19:16:50 by BEG2IAH
Official STS-127 Endeavour Shuttle Mission Thread posted Sun May 24 2009 11:57:31 by ZANL188
Official STS-119 Discovery Shuttle Mission Thread posted Mon Jan 19 2009 00:18:29 by SNA350

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format