Justloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 871 posts, RR: 1 Posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4645 times:
"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.
MCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4306 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.
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4423 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4238 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.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16247 posts, RR: 52 Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4241 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.
Areopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1356 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4148 times:
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11705 posts, RR: 52 Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4134 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.
Justloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 871 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4076 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.
MCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4010 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.
JakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1247 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4006 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.
Echster From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 396 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3969 times:
AirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 6 Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3933 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.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11705 posts, RR: 52 Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3880 times:
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
UH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3866 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.
Socal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 473 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3846 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.
TropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3826 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.
JakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1247 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3826 times:
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
Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4423 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3776 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.
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.
Echster From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 396 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3765 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.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11705 posts, RR: 52 Reply 19, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3734 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).
Texfly101 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 351 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3701 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.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11705 posts, RR: 52 Reply 21, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3624 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.
Texfly101 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 351 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3583 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"
Bhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 841 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3580 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....
Boeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3579 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 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 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 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
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 871 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4423 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
