Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Does Hard Sell For Tanker Under BA's Nose..  
User currently offlineKEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4511 times:

I found Airbus remarkably silent & out of sight on the tanker requirement during the last year or so. Probably they wanted to avoid becoming a welcome decoy in the Pentagon-Boeing tanker conflict.


Now that approach apparently has ended

Cold war on a few square feet, read the article ..
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002035671_tankers15.html

As mentioned on the civil forum also a site has been opened by EADS North American .. http://www.kc330.com/index.jsp fully focussed on the USAF and government decision makers. The home page is showing a USAF KC330 filling up a F22..



20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2969 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4399 times:

These USAF tanker threads are starting to become the Military Aviation Forum's version of the "NW DC-9" threads over in general Aviation.

Although I do like the alternate title of the website Keesje linked to: "www.usatanker.com"



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4382 times:

I think the refuelling boom looks very different from what I´ve seen on other tankers....

http://www.usatanker.com/media/Tanker_head_on_hr_2.jpg


User currently offlineDl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4375 times:

Airbus does not yet have a refuelling probe even designed completely. There are some reports in the magazines that the Australians, who are the only ones yet who need it due to the F-111's, are not happy about the progress; and that the RAF and Ministry of Defence Procurement people are not happy with the PFI terms and the delays in getting the thigs done. This whole thing may not yet be completely over for these two air forces.

The KC-767 will be built for the USAF because there is little that can be done otherwise. There is little chance a foreign made aircraft will be bought in large quantity by either Republicans or Democrats, and the need is to replace similar sized aircraft. We already have a fleet of larger a/c that fill that mission. The KC-767 will be the right airplane. We will be able to get more of them flying, and have less risk per airframe.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 997 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4348 times:

I was actually kind of turned on by the 777/737 solution that would involve leasing unneeded airframes to commercial airlines to bring in profit rather than just sitting around getting older. You send a 777 with large strategic airlifts and send 737 along with individual sorties... less compromise in terms superfelous capacity.

Keeping maybe 25-50% of the fleet in commercial service at attractive lease rates would require that the USAF keep their fleet somewhat modern, so we wouldn't end up with KC-737 40 years from now....


User currently offlineBENNETT123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7751 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4347 times:


I see no reason why the KC330 should not compete with the KC767. That said, I think that it is unlikely to win.

Perhaps DeltaGuy can provide a list of the list of the Representatives/ Senators with Boeing campaign funding.

I thought that competition was supposed to be a good thing.

For the record, most European Air Forces operate at least some US aircraft, although in the case of France it is limited to KC135's.

Coming back to the KC330, the problem with the PFI terms is that the MOD do not have the money to buy the aircraft, but do not want any liabilities for the aircraft when not required. The result is that the suppliers would then have to find a use for aircraft which were no longer standard, and which could not be leased long term because the MOD might suddenly want them back. If you add to this that there is a defence review and the MOD are demanding price cuts, you have a problem.

If the suppliers are not careful, they could end up subsidising the MOD.

The way that this has been handled, and the fact that the Defence Review did not mention this project, may suggest that they would be happy if the Tanker Consortium walked away from the project. This would cover the fact that they want to scrap it, and struggle on with the VC10/L1011 until after the next election.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 997 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4341 times:

Perhaps DeltaGuy can provide a list of the list of the Representatives/ Senators with Boeing campaign funding.

I'd sure like to know, because FECA would be all over their asses  Big grin


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2969 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4318 times:

Silly me, I thought France operated C-130s and DC-8s too.

In any case, there are some very real reasons as to why the A-330 is not an appropriate replacement for KC-135Es. Not least of which is size. The U.S. is interested in taking aircraft pretty soon after the order is made, and with Airbus still needing to work out the major technical issues with a proposed KC-330 (cargo door and freight floor, underwing pylons for hosereel units, an actual refuelling boom), the Airbus proposal has a lot of catching up to do with the Boeing option, which is currently finishing up its conversion down here in Wichita for the Italian Air Force.

If you really want to get into details though, do a search here. there are plenty of threads on this.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineBENNETT123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7751 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4275 times:

Yes I had forgotten about the French DC8 and C130. Thanks for reminding me.

As you say, let us stick to the technical issues here.

Neither supplier is going to fail without this order, it should go to the supplier who meets the customer's requirement at the lowest cost. The great unknown, is what level of capacity is the USAF going to want/need in the future.

I may be missing something here, but I understood that the USAF option was different to the option for the Italian Air Force. If so, is EITHER type available of the shelf.

Besides, the A380, which has not even flown yet, is due to be in service by 2006. If that is possible, then I do not see why the KC330 mods should not be feasible. Neither option is going into service next week.



User currently offlineKEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4271 times:

Seems EADS is aiming for part of the cake, not to kill "the competition"


Michel Folscheid, marketing director of EADS tankers, also moved here earlier this year from Europe. He said the company is making a long-term commitment to breaking into the American defense industry.

He was cagey about whether EADS wants the Pentagon to open up competition for the 100 planes under discussion. But Folscheid was emphatic that the Air Force would be better served if it replaces the rest of its 500-tanker fleet with both Boeing and Airbus planes.

"We're not here to kill the competition. We're not here to capture 100 percent of the market," he said. "We're here to introduce our product. We're here to introduce competition."


So maybe a 2 type fleet, like "the 777/737 solution" Dfw mentioned.


User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4249 times:

BENNETT,

It may not be delivered next week, but Boeing can get it out alot quicker since nothing proposed are new items, simply bring together off the shelf upgrades into one aircraft.

KEESJE,

The USAF already operates a two type fleet KC-10's and KC-135's, they are aiming to replace the KC-135's at the moment because the KC-10's still have quite a bit of life left in them.



At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineKEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4250 times:

PPGM,

the INTERNATIONAL AIR SYSTEMS, IL proposal to USAF, an alternative to the Boeing offer for tanker/transport aircraft; it is offering mix of 100 737/777 tankers under wet-lease-type approach (aircraft could be used commercially when not in military service).

It says BOEING would perform R&D with 2.5-year lead time for service entry; features would include roll-on/roll-off boom operator station and snap-on booms/wing pods.

It also would introduce two new types next to the KC10, which in its own has overlap with other strategic transport aircraft. So apparently other parties don't think 1 type is a fixed requirement.

the A-330 is not an appropriate replacement for KC-135Es. Not least of which is size.

If we are talking about size, a 757 version should have been the best replacement IMO. The KC767 is also significant larger (span, height) then the KC135 (& we are not talking a few inch here). I have heard nobody mentioning that as an obstacle though..


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2969 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4231 times:

True the 757 is smaller than the 767, and if we try to point out the increased payload of the 767, the A330 will trump that argument.

As for the differences between the USAF and Italian KC-767s, There really won't be too much of a difference. They will both be 767-200 airframes with side cargo door and centerline boom and hosereel pods. Any other differences would be in engines (USAF is taking P&W 400 series, is Italy taking CF-6?), avionics, defense systems.. paintjob?

Looking specifically as to why the 757 (KC-32?) or A330 wouldn't be an appropriate choice:

1) USAF desire to go from narrowbody (KC-135) to widebody transport

2) Increased payload

3) Airframe still in production

4) Commonality with already orcered E-10 (767-400) fleet

5) Commonality with already purchased/certified medevac interior (used on CRAF 767-200 fleet of USAir)

6) Demonstrated ability to integrate systems into tanker fleet (EADS failure to get working wing pods on L-1011 tankers is a big issue)

7) Existing tanker and cargo conversions

8) Existing industrial base (EADS proposing to build A330s in America would require a huge amount of infastructure and investment)

9) Inability to provide enough booms on station. USAF aircraft refuel one at a time. When you have to refuell a whole strike package of, say 10 aircraft, being able to throw up 3 tankers instead of 2 (due to groundspace concerns) is much more important than how much gas each one of those tankers can individually carry.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineBENNETT123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7751 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4222 times:

PPGMD

The point that I am making is that the required delivery is several years ahead and both Airbus or Boeing are perfectly capable of developing a new varient of an existing type in that timescale.

Spacepope

1. Both the A330 and B767 are wide bodies, so I see no problem here.

2. Both offer an increased payload compared to the KC135.

3. Both airframes are currently in production.

4. Commonality with E10 fleet. I could buy that if you were buying 10 tankers, but you are initially buying 100, and probably more later. The need for commonality is marginal at best.

5. What is the probability of the CRAF useing large numbers of B767 in 10/20 years. What is the probability of US Air existing in 10 years.

6. I think that the current priority is the A310 and A330.

7. Airbus has considerable experience of cargo conversions on the A300/A310.
They are also converting A310's to tankers for Germany and Canada. The A330 (1992) is a much newer plane than the B767 (1981), and production to date has been focussed on the passenger varient.

8. Clearly there will be the need for a major commitment, but with the prospect of an order of this size, it would be worth it. It would also strengthen their position in selling A330/340 in the US.

9. Clearly the more booms per tanker the better.

I am not saying that it would be easy for Airbus to win this contract, just that they have a chance if there is a level playing field. If congress has already decided to go Boeing then any "competition" would be a sham.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 997 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4174 times:

9. Clearly the more booms per tanker the better.

Not necessairly... the A330T will only have a single boom in any event. It can carry multiple house/drougs, but that doesn't do a whole lot of good when refueling boom aircraft.

So more tankers is the only solution I know of... hell that makes the 737 look even better  Big grin

8. Clearly there will be the need for a major commitment, but with the prospect of an order of this size, it would be worth it. It would also strengthen their position in selling A330/340 in the US.

For building only 100 tankers without garunteed add-ons in the near future? I raise an eye brow... even if EADS flew the A330 components to the U.S. using the A300ST, you aren't talking chump change for final assembly, regardless of Airbus efficent manufacturing process.

If we are talking about size, a 757 version should have been the best replacement IMO. The KC767 is also significant larger (span, height) then the KC135 (& we are not talking a few inch here). I have heard nobody mentioning that as an obstacle though..

The 767-200 is a 707 replacement... the 757 is a 727 replacement.... they are very different aircraft designed for different missions. It might also be hard to come by 757s these days  Big grin

[Edited 2004-09-17 01:43:33]

User currently offlineKEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3975 times:


The 767-200 is a 707 replacement... the 757 is a 727 replacement.... they are very different aircraft designed for different missions. It might also be hard to come by 757s these days


What I am referring is the fact Boeing people say the A330 is just to big and so doesn't fit in the existing infrastructure for the KC135.

No one ever mentioned a KC767 would also be substantial larger then the KC135 and would also not fit in existing infrastructure.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3756 times:

Defense bill kills Boeing tanker deal

Plan also keeps base closures on the agenda

WASHINGTON - The Boeing Co. would lose the $23 billion deal it won last year to lease and sell aircraft refueling tankers to the Air Force, while a plan to close some military bases would go forward under a nearly $450 billion defense bill moving toward House approval.

The measure would kill the leasing aspect of the tanker deal, but would allow the Air Force to buy 100 Boeing 767 planes for use as tankers. However, that purchase could happen only after several studies are completed.


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2837725


User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3748 times:

The Air Force wanted to lease those aircraft for a reason. With a lease they could bring the aircraft online as quickly as Boeing can roll them out, but buying the aircraft would slow down the production considerably, like what happened to the F-22 deal.


At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineContact_tower From Norway, joined Sep 2001, 536 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3743 times:

Boeing "played a bit dirty", now they, and indeed the USAF pay the price.

Might get EADS into the game again, pity it's a game they will never win!  Smile


User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3710 times:

I also highly doubt that they would win (EADS), I personally think that this new competition is simply to show Boeing who's the boss, so they might lower their prices.

I do believe that most reports don't pin any wrong doing on Boeing as far as the tanker lease contract was concerned. But I can understand the high cost of the contract (and the reason the USAF wants a lease), Boeing doesn't want to be screwed at the end of the lease, with 100 heavily used aircraft, that the USAF decides not to buy, so they of course want to pay for the aircraft with the lease, and any money from the purchasing the aircraft is gravy.

Remember that getting screwed over by defense contracts isn't a one-way street. Congress has screwed over the contractors on many occasions.



At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineKEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (10 years 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3280 times:

Lockheed Martin leaves door open for bid on tankers CEO says that company would study opportunity

Lockheed Martin Corp. has not ruled out bidding on a contract to supply tanker aircraft to the Air Force, chief executive Robert Stevens said yesterday.

Stevens' comments are a shift from Lockheed Martin's previous public statements, in which the company, a defense contractor, has said it has no interest in challenging Boeing Co. for the new air-tanker fleet.

"We don't have any opportunities to discuss today. Should one arise, we'll evaluate it thoroughly," Stevens said in an appearance at the company's Owego, N.Y., plant. Reporters listened in via a conference call.


meanwhile Airbus is delivering A310 multi role tankers (photo reuters).


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Airbus Does Hard Sell For Tanker Under BA's Nose..
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...
Airbus Plant In The U.S. For KC-135 Repacement. posted Sat Sep 24 2005 02:24:14 by 747400sp
F-16/ Does The F Stand For Fighter? posted Mon Apr 14 2003 12:32:04 by USAir330
Why Not Airbus For US Tanker Requirement: Answered posted Thu Jan 20 2005 22:24:16 by DL021
Airbus Is In The Tanker Game posted Mon Sep 25 2006 16:25:04 by Justloveplanes
New Stealth Aircraft Under Contract For Usaf posted Sat Jun 24 2006 23:05:17 by RichardPrice
Omega Air Offers To Modify DC10s For Usaf Tanker posted Tue Jun 13 2006 14:45:20 by Lumberton
Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition posted Sat Jan 28 2006 07:41:17 by Jacobin777
Why Not A Dedicated Tanker Design For The Usaf? posted Tue Jan 3 2006 04:20:46 by Dandy_don
Saab J-350E "Draken" For Sell posted Tue Dec 27 2005 14:55:03 by PETER05
Best Tanker Option For Usaf? posted Sun Nov 20 2005 15:08:24 by KC135TopBoom

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format