Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Is In The Tanker Game  
User currently offlineJustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1063 posts, RR: 1
Posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6181 times:

From Yahoo!

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/060925/aero_airforce_contract.html?.v=1

"Citing a senior Pentagon official, The Journal said the plan also envisions funding tanker-development efforts by both companies until the winner is selected."

The above story is interesting in that the Pentagon will fund development by both companies, at which point a decision will be made. This just convinces me even more that the EU and the US have made a trade deal that includes:

1) No or Modified Launch Aid for Airbus.
2) Equal footing for Airbus in US DOD.

I think this would be good because launch aid served its purpose to jump start Airbus, but at 50% market share I think it is a dilutive force. At that point injecting subsidies diminishes the value of both Airbus and Boeing as it clouds market efficiencies, which for mature multibillion dollar companies is the best way to ensure growth, etc.

The participation of Airbus in DOD would be good too. The theory behind setting Boeing and Airbus on like footing (open market) should put Airbus in the US DOD market on like footing as well. Airbus can expect to receive its share of the pie as DOD ensures all its strategic big guys (Boeing, Lockmart, Northrup and General Dynamics, and now BAE and EADS) are fed, though some better than others based on merit.

I feel this would be a better arrangement going forward.

JLP

44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5853 times:

hmm, so the US capitulates to the EU and starts subsidising Airbus so EADS can sell more Airbusses at below cost rates, thus outcompeting Boeing.

Can't see how anyone but the EU gets a good deal out of that.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5842 times:

Forgive me, but never gonna happen. This is simply leverage over Boeing to make sure they get a good price on wheatever Boeing decides to offer. The reason is that the Pentagon is keen on keeping this in the US. They are fully aware of political ramifications and that contracts go out the window in time of war. They will never buy their tanker overseas because they don't want to be beholden to the political whims of the nations of the parent company. They won't even take the chance that parts and supplies get cut off because a country or group of countries doesn't agree with the current operations.


Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4936 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 23 hours ago) and read 5774 times:

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 2):
This is simply leverage over Boeing to make sure they get a good price on wheatever Boeing decides to offer.

My take exactly - although much of Airbus components are US sourced, to begin with, as both manufacturers share some suppliers that it becomes moot. A minimum US content for critical parts could even be written into the RFP so there would be no gray areas.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16892 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 23 hours ago) and read 5777 times:

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 1):
hmm, so the US capitulates to the EU and starts subsidising Airbus so EADS can sell more Airbusses at below cost rates, thus outcompeting Boeing.

Can't see how anyone but the EU gets a good deal out of that.

That's why Congress would never let it happen, and they need the approval of Congress to approve such a deal. Look what happened with Dubai Port deal, the Bush Administration gave their approval to let Dubai Ports puchase P&O's Port Operations in the US. Once Congress and the media got a hold of it the deal was off.

Same would happen under the proposed scenarios with EADS.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1372 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 16 hours ago) and read 5684 times:

Why do so many people misspell Northrop with a u?

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 14 hours ago) and read 5670 times:

I just don't see USAF being allowed to order a new tanker. Funding over the F-22 is very tight, and they need more of those airplanes. It looks like Congress is extending the C-17 production, at least for one more year (2009) with 10 additional airplanes. The F-35 production start is just over the horizon, and the USAF is beginning to look at a new bomber beginning in 2018 or so.

Congress knows they can rebuild the KC-135Es to KC-135Rs for a lot less money and still have the same refueling capability. Congress also knows the USAF needs 600 new tankers (to replace all KC-135s and later the KC-10s), and plans to enter a new tanker compitition after the first 150-200 of these tankers are built (around the years 2022-2025, based on production of 15-20 new tankers per year).

Rebuilding the KC-135Es will put off the need for new tankers until that 2022-2025 time frame.

http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articl...S&WTmodLoc=HybArt-L2-CompanyNews-2


User currently offlineJustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1063 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 5612 times:

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 1):
hmm, so the US capitulates to the EU and starts subsidising Airbus so EADS can sell more Airbusses at below cost rates, thus outcompeting Boeing.

Can't see how anyone but the EU gets a good deal out of that.

I don't see that it is such a strategic fence to climb with the EU. Getting rid of Airbus launch aid will strengthen Boeing's overall position as a company - and that is good. Also, the EU buys a good bit of US stuff, reciprocating might be in our best interests. When I wrote this, I was thinking the order could have been split, which would keep a good portion of the orders B767 based. Also, wouldn't GE engines, Honeywell avionics and spares and program engineering support from Northrop help with the foreign sourcing issue?

Mind you I am not an Airbus fan, but I HATE launch aid. Screws up everything on the commercial side IMHO.

There have been some good points raised though. Now USAF is saying no split and a decision by next summer. I take that to mean the launch aid deal has fallen through and we will see all US tankers and launch aid for the A350XWB.

JLP


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 5546 times:

Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 7):
When I wrote this, I was thinking the order could have been split, which would keep a good portion of the orders B767 based.

Link

Quote:
In January, 2006 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced the cancellation of the KC-767 program.

I still don't think Boeing's next offering will be 767-based. They will offer something newer.



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineJakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 5542 times:

I still think the USAF is waiting for the 787 to see what that bird can do.


Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
User currently offlineEchster From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 1 hour ago) and read 5505 times:

Seems the KC-777 is on tap:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...nology/2003275629_777tanker26.html


User currently offlineAirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5469 times:

I don't think the USAF will ever forgive France for not allowing French airspace overflights to bomb Libya. That denial caused about (if I remember) 10 air hours added to the mission.


Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5416 times:

Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 7):
GE engines

Actually the KC-767A proposal to the USAF has P&W engines

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 8):
I still don't think Boeing's next offering will be 767-based. They will offer something newer.



Quoting Echster (Reply 10):
Seems the KC-777 is on tap:



Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 9):
I still think the USAF is waiting for the 787 to see what that bird can do.

Hmmm, is the A-330-200F, A-340-500, A-350-800, and B-747-800F out of consideration now? I still think we will see the KC-135Es reengined to the KC-135R


User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5402 times:

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 9):
I still think the USAF is waiting for the 787 to see what that bird can do.

You think so?

Boeing hasn't even discussed a freighter version of the 787, let alone a tanker version. And not to mention delivery slots are pretty much taken up to 2011.

What is Boeing or Airbus saying the earliest they could start deliveries? Surely it's well before the a KC787 could be introduced.

-UH60


User currently offlineSocal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5382 times:

Why do people keep thinking Airbus is in the running, Boeing is the only option.
Just because Airbus teamed up with Northrop doesn't make a difference.



I Love HNL.............
User currently offlineTropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5362 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
Hmmm, is the A-330-200F, A-340-500, A-350-800, and B-747-800F out of consideration now? I still think we will see the KC-135Es reengined to the KC-135R

According to the USAF criteria...some of these models are still play. As TopBoom has astutely noted, it is still premature to feel confident what the final offerings to the USAF will be.


User currently offlineJakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5362 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13):

I understand what you’re saying, but I look at it this way:

If the 787 will be successful as Boeing claims, there are numerous advantages over the 767 and possibly the 777-200 if Boeing goes ahead with the 787-10. Lower operating costs, less fuel consumption, lighter but stronger airframe (less dead weight, more cargo capacity) etc. Hence, just my opinion why the USAF is waiting for the 787. Why replace an aging fleet (KC-135s) with another aging fleet (767s) when you can have a newer aircraft (787) that is superior?

Again, just my  twocents 



Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4936 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5312 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
I still think we will see the KC-135Es reengined to the KC-135R

With all due respect, much as you like the 135s, those who control the purse strings seem to be prodded to have a new type(s) in service.  scratchchin 

Re-engined 135Rs would take as much time to enter service, as Boeing need to develop and mature a KC-777 design - which makes the prospect of another long wait likely.

Or at best, 135Rs only in numbers sufficient to tide the fleet along until the ultimate winner of the tanker contest are ordered and delivered.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineEchster From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5301 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13):
Boeing hasn't even discussed a freighter version of the 787, let alone a tanker version. And not to mention delivery slots are pretty much taken up to 2011.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe Boeing is already contemplating opening a second B787 line in Washington. I'm sure Boeing would find a way to get the USAF airframes when it wants them, even if that means completing the C-17 work and starting a tanker line at LGB.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5270 times:

Quoting Echster (Reply 18):
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe Boeing is already contemplating opening a second B787 line in Washington. I'm sure Boeing would find a way to get the USAF airframes when it wants them, even if that means completing the C-17 work and starting a tanker line at LGB.

All of that is true. If a second B-787 line is opened, it will be on what is currently the KC/B-767 line. If USAF orders the KC-767, then no second B-787 can open until either the KC-767s are all delivered, or a new facility is built. Boeing wants to sell the LGB plant. That Southern California land is worth more than the production line is, even after the enviornmential clean up.

BTW, I believe that Boeing told the USAF last spring, the B-787 could be built as a KC-787, if that is what they want (out of the current models, the B-787-800 would make the best tanker version of the B-787).


User currently offlineTexfly101 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5237 times:

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 5):
Why do so many people misspell Northrop with a u?

good one...and so true

Quoting Echster (Reply 18):
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe Boeing is already contemplating opening a second B787 line in Washington. I'm sure Boeing would find a way to get the USAF airframes when it wants them, even if that means completing the C-17 work and starting a tanker line at LGB.

yes, the 2nd 787 line has been discussed a lot and the 767 line is a prime location in the plant. Also the California delegation is not happy with aircraft manufacturing leaving So Cal. Supporting that move would be well within their wishes.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5160 times:

Quoting Texfly101 (Reply 20):
Also the California delegation is not happy with aircraft manufacturing leaving So Cal. Supporting that move would be well within their wishes.

It is common for Congress to direct where new weapons systems will be built, and they will add the additional funding to make it happen. LGB is not out of the running, but I know that Boeing does want to close it and sell the land. If Congress makes the money pot sweet enough, Boeing will change its mind. But I believe the Alabama and Mississippi delagations will vote against any move to build new airplanes in LBG since they want new KC-30s built in MOB. This will be a fun debate to watch. My guess is the new tanker will be built in LGB and some new Navy ships built in the Mississippi/Alabama area as a compromise.


User currently offlineTexfly101 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5119 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
It is common for Congress to direct where new weapons systems will be built, and they will add the additional funding to make it happen. LGB is not out of the running, but I know that Boeing does want to close it and sell the land. If Congress makes the money pot sweet enough, Boeing will change its mind. But I believe the Alabama and Mississippi delagations will vote against any move to build new airplanes in LBG since they want new KC-30s built in MOB. This will be a fun debate to watch. My guess is the new tanker will be built in LGB and some new Navy ships built in the Mississippi/Alabama area as a compromise.

Yes, you are so right. As you say, it will be interesting to see how the pols justify their arguments and decisions regarding this aircraft. I would almost want to say that the RFP shouldn't be named the "USAF KC-X" but rather the "Congressional KC-X Re-Election Strategy"


User currently offlineBhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1009 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5116 times:

Hmmm..not to be nationalistic but..the only Superpower ordering parts from Europe for it's inflight tactical refuling solution? Not to piss off my allied friends, but hey, we wanted to shun "french fries" when THAT tiff started. Fagetaboutit...The DoD and the State Depatment are only going through the motions to make our European friends' feathers smoother after the hard feelings over the last decade. Face it..we are almost 1 trillion...yep with a T..in expenses over operations in the mid east. Seems we are now looking to spread the bar tab around a bit..to wit..NATO Theater Commanders..(non US) will be more in charge of US troops. Mark my words..when the ink is dry on this contract, Boeing, the one in Chicago, USA will be a signatory....

Cheers,



Carpe Pices
User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5115 times:

Quoting Socal (Reply 14):
Why do people keep thinking Airbus is in the running, Boeing is the only option.
Just because Airbus teamed up with Northrop doesn't make a difference.

Not so fast there, the Sikorsky S-92 was also thought to be a lock to win the contract for the next Presidential helicopter transport. They weren't.

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 16):
If the 787 will be successful as Boeing claims, there are numerous advantages over the 767 and possibly the 777-200 if Boeing goes ahead with the 787-10. Lower operating costs, less fuel consumption, lighter but stronger airframe (less dead weight, more cargo capacity) etc. Hence, just my opinion why the USAF is waiting for the 787.

The sticking point here is the 787 could be a victim of it's own success. The USAF won't wait around for slots for the 787 when the 767 line is open. Boeing won't close the 767 line unless they can comit to the KC-787. There's a bit of a Catch 22 here.

Quoting Echster (Reply 18):
I do believe Boeing is already contemplating opening a second B787 line in Washington.

Key word here is contiemplating.


25 JakeOrion : Very good point, and the way the 787 is racking up orders there might be no other option but to go with the 767/A330/etc.
26 KC135TopBoom : I wouldn't agree with that. There is the B-747, B-777, A-340, and KC-135E options, all still open.
27 Post contains links DeltaDAWG : I was redaing the article below from Northrop-Grumman's website and have to ask, if Airbus/Northrop-Grumman were to win (a long shot) the KC-30 contra
28 USAF336TFS : With all due respect, the S-92 was anything but a lock. Some of us believe that decision to award the VH-X program to the US101 team was politically
29 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Likely should Boeing win. But a double boon for Mobile, AL in the event Northrop/EADS squeak by..... http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ral-comba
30 KC135TopBoom : The A-330s will be made in France, then flown to MOB and converted to KC-30s. To imply they will be completely built in the US is deceiving.
31 DeltaDAWG : That is my take on it as well. It would mean a economic boon to Mobile but to me it is Airbus and Northrop trying to pull the wool over taxpayers eye
32 KC135TopBoom : I thought the LCS-2 class was going to be built by Bath Iron Works, in Portland, Maine.
33 Scouseflyer : So would that make a KC787 a foreign plane too as it's frame is built almost entirely outside of the US and just snapped together by Boeing.........
34 RAPCON : Ditto. No way will Congress ever authorize this expenditure of $$$ for EADS. Too many jobs and too much political pull by Boeing. This is just giving
35 Wingman : hehe, this is like LH and IB entertaining offers from Boeing. It almost looks real enough to be real but in the end it's always just a farce. Buying a
36 USAF336TFS : I'm sorry, but how can you say that? Boeing's site states that 90% of the aircraft is U.S. manufactured.
37 KC135TopBoom : A very large percentage of the B-787 is made in Witicha, KS, South Carolina, and Washington (state), as well as final assembly in Washington. But, ab
38 USAF336TFS : I believe my original reaction to the question involved the KC-767, which if you check Boeing's "Global Aerial Tanker" site maintains a high % U.S. c
39 Columba : Although it is off-topic you can be very sure that some part of the LH order will go to Boeing. Maybe they will go for the A350 but the 747 replaceme
40 Par13del : A couple questions here: 1. Under what US law / provision is Airbus entitled to bid on a US defense contract? I am under the impression that the Congr
41 Bennett123 : Deltadawg People could only be deceived if they seriously think that 1,000 people could build these aircraft from scratch. How many work at Seattle or
42 Post contains images Boeing Nut : Strange, I was under the impression from some articles that Sikorsky was heavily favored to win the contract. I actually think it was a better choice
43 Par13del : Bennett123, unless I'm reading too much into some poster's wordings - not just in this thread -, there seems to be this impression that Airbus has to
44 KC135TopBoom : Airbus was "allowed" to bid, through another US aircraft manufactuer because of Senator John McCain's objection to the KC-767A "lease deal" back in 2
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Airbus Is In The Tanker Game
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
Holes In The Tanker Story posted Mon Jun 20 2005 21:13:33 by Beauing
What Is There To So In The Space Industry? posted Thu Jan 13 2005 23:02:00 by Lehpron
The Super Hornet Is In A Film Already! posted Wed Oct 17 2001 01:01:06 by FlyBoeing
US Carriers Due In The UK? posted Wed Oct 25 2006 14:05:13 by GBOAG
Air Superiority Over Europe In The Early 1980s posted Mon Aug 28 2006 15:58:34 by AislepathLight
Video - RAF In The Gulf In 1990/91 posted Mon Aug 21 2006 19:13:33 by GDB
Ultralights In The Air Force posted Mon Jul 31 2006 02:13:06 by Mariscal35
New Wild Weasel In The Future posted Mon Jul 31 2006 01:09:23 by EBJ1248650
Military Jets In The Adirondacks posted Sun Jul 9 2006 00:49:11 by Newark777

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format