KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10570 posts, RR: 53 Posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 9694 times:
The USAF has a $240M fund set up to fight any protest from a loosing competitor in the KC-45 program.
A contract winner could be selected as early as Monday, 25 February 2008.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10570 posts, RR: 53 Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9685 times:
Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 1): That $240 mil used to keep Airbus out of the game could be used for more Raptors...just my take though.
I agree, it could be used better, but those who think they know what is better for the troops, than the troops do have to be defended against.
NorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2281 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9681 times:
I found this little bit interesting.
"Hoffman said the contract could be worth $30 billion to $40 billion overall, although the exact amount is "vendor specific," since the value is related to the cost of each aircraft."
Given the lower list price of the 767, the established production line, the production tooling already in place, the established supply chain, and the trained workers Boeing already has in the factory (and a easily trained Seattle population that has a history of building jet aircraft) I would guess that the Boeing bid is closer to $30 billion and the EADS bid is closer to $40.
Airbus has a more expensive plane, a final assembly line and plant to build, all the associated tooling, a supply chain to establish (they need to get the parts from Europe to Mobile somehow), and a lot of people they need to train to build these things. Given all of the things they'll need to spend a lot of money on I find it hard to believe they can offer a price comparable to Boeing.
"Rapid decompression leads to involuntary exiting of the Aircraft"
EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1817 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 9656 times:
Quoting NorCal (Reply 3): Airbus has a more expensive plane, a final assembly line and plant to build, all the associated tooling, a supply chain to establish (they need to get the parts from Europe to Mobile somehow), and a lot of people they need to train to build these things. Given all of the things they'll need to spend a lot of money on I find it hard to believe they can offer a price comparable to Boeing.
Add to this the question of just how long the Air Force is going to be willing to wait to get their first Airbus tanker. Once again I find myself wondering if the competition is really little more than a formality and those on the inside already know and have long known that Boeing will win. It's not like such practices are rare.
Cruiser From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 991 posts, RR: 10 Reply 5, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 9623 times:
That does have me thinking - it's not so much about the $240Million so much as the time it would waste getting these planes into service when the outcome is only going to be the same the next time around.
Also, does anyone know how long it will take EADS to get the new factory built and people trained? I would have thought this would have certainly delayed the 2010 EIS.
Leahy on Per Seat Costs: "Have you seen the B-2 fly-by at almost US$1bn a copy? It has only 2 seats!"
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6561 posts, RR: 72 Reply 6, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 9576 times:
Quoting NorCal (Reply 3): Given the lower list price of the 767, the established production line, the production tooling already in place, the established supply chain, and the trained workers Boeing already has in the factory
How can that be the case when a 762LFR has never been built before ?
Boeing has already said they will change the production line if it wins.
Quoting NorCal (Reply 3): Airbus has a more expensive plane, a final assembly line and plant to build, all the associated tooling, a supply chain to establish (they need to get the parts from Europe to Mobile somehow), and a lot of people they need to train to build these things.
At the last round, the KC-330 was offered at a lower price than the KC-767. Do you have a source to say that the KC-767AT will be offered cheaper than the KC-30A this time around ?
What value has been removed from the KC-767 to become the KC-767AT that would make it cheaper than what it was offered last time ?
NorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2281 posts, RR: 4 Reply 7, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 9564 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 6): At the last round, the KC-330 was offered at a lower price than the KC-767. Do you have a source to say that the KC-767AT will be offered cheaper than the KC-30A this time around ?
You want to use the lease deal as a guide for the KC-767 price? Everyone know Boeing was overcharging the USAF with those prices. Fortunately people were caught and went to jail. If Boeing is thinking about charging those prices again then they deserve to lose. I don't think they'll do that again.
Last time Airbus was offering the KC-30, NG wasn't involved and there wasn't any talk of a Mobile plant to stick the pieces together. You have to add in these costs to the Airbus bid; opening a new plant, buying all the tooling for assembly, setting up a supply chain to move parts across the Atlantic, and the necessity of training a 1,000 people with no experience on how to put a plane together. That is all very expensive.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 6): What value has been removed from the KC-767 to become the KC-767AT that would make it cheaper than what it was offered last time ?
Nothing has been removed, but something has been added. That is close congressional scrutiny and the real threat of ordering the KC-30. Boeing will offer a realistic deal this time to the USAF.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 6): How can that be the case when a 762LFR has never been built before ?
It isn't a new airplane, it is parts of other 767s that Boeing has been building for decades.
"Rapid decompression leads to involuntary exiting of the Aircraft"
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6561 posts, RR: 72 Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 9527 times:
Quoting NorCal (Reply 7): Everyone know Boeing was overcharging the USAF with those prices.
Do you have a source for that ?
Quoting NorCal (Reply 7): Last time Airbus was offering the KC-30, NG wasn't involved and there wasn't any talk of a Mobile plant to stick the pieces together. You have to add in these costs to the Airbus bid; opening a new plant, buying all the tooling for assembly, setting up a supply chain to move parts across the Atlantic, and the necessity of training a 1,000 people with no experience on how to put a plane together. That is all very expensive.
Boeing would also face new costs and training and has to move parts across its global supply chain. According to Boeing they will "support more than 44,000 American jobs and 300 suppliers". The majority of its major assembly will be done in one of the most expensive states in the US.
Some of the costs in Mobile will be offset by commercial assembly of A332Fs which is getting close to 80 frames now, and NG has access to much better economies of scale with the production volume of A330s. Airbus will produce close to the total KC-X contract every 2 years or so with the current A330 supply chain. EADS already has a facility in Mobile, and it already working on other Airbus programs like the A350 and A380.
Quoting NorCal (Reply 7): Boeing will offer a realistic deal this time to the USAF.
Do you have a source for that ?
Quoting NorCal (Reply 7): It isn't a new airplane, it is parts of other 767s that Boeing has been building for decades.
If it isn't a new airplane, why did it take so long to he the KC-767 certified for Japan ? why was that delayed so long ? where can one see a 767-200LFR now ? where is the certification paperwork ?
Every thing I have seen suggests very much that it is a new airplane, and does not share much commonality even with the KC-767, or KC-767A.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 6468 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9469 times:
Most sources point to Airbus being cheaper.
Also, "cheaper" or "better value" is very hard to determine. We are talking about a very complex, 30 year duration contract in various currencies.
Boeing has a lot of congressmen and women in their pocket. That matters. In fact, the 5 "criteria" might as well be the names of Congress members.
If Airbus is not cheaper, they stand zero chance. They know it too. Therefore, Airbus will almost certainly be cheaper.
Airbus's cost of production is higher. Euro zone firm, building a new factory, etc. The opponent, Boeing is dollar-zone and already has a 767 line sitting up in Everett.
So the Boeing COULD/SHOULD be cheaper. BUT Airbus strategically won't let that happen. Airbus will underbid Boeing because they must do so. So they will.
Airbus is desperate to get into this market to make a name and reputation for themselves in warfighting USAF birds. Even if they make zero profit on the KC-30 (which is likely).
Boeing, meanwhile, sees this as just another cash cow. They can take it or leave it. Building 767s costs Boeing next to nothing. So they will try to preserve a big profit margin... behaving less desperately, milking their congressional connections.
TropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9466 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 8): Quoting NorCal (Reply 7):
Everyone know Boeing was overcharging the USAF with those prices.
Do you have a source for that ?
Linked below is the most detailed public report on the previous tanker scandal by the DoD Office of the Inspector General. Once you access the web-site, download Part I and go to page 11 (page 21 of the PDF) where it gets into the pricing and overcharging issue. The entire document is about 250 pages long and has some very interesting bits. Much of what is redacted is to protect the politicians such as the White House and Members of Congress who tried to railroad this thing through. Sen. McCain is credited with stopping this lease deal and that is one of the reasons why he is so disliked in DC.
Anyone who doubts this was not an illegal and sweatheart deal for Boeing should read this.
MOBflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1209 posts, RR: 5 Reply 12, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 9337 times:
Quoting NorCal (Reply 3): Given the lower list price of the 767, the established production line, the production tooling already in place, the established supply chain, and the trained workers Boeing already has in the factory (and a easily trained Seattle population that has a history of building jet aircraft) I would guess that the Boeing bid is closer to $30 billion and the EADS bid is closer to $40.
Not so fast. One must remember that the United States is on sale as far as internationals go right now. Additionally, in an effort to gain a foothold in the lucrative US defense market, they may be willing to marginally break even or even sustain a slight loss. It is very plausible that the KC-30 is in fact less expensive, while definitely not cheaper, than the Boeing offering.
Nomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1286 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 9284 times:
How much money does it take to print a copy of the decision to blow off Pratt's superior engine offer for the A400M in favor of the local outfit? It would be very fitting to see them loose $40B or so because they decided to let politics decide the contract a few years back.
Tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 3283 posts, RR: 4 Reply 14, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 9251 times:
Quoting NorCal (Reply 7):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 6):
What value has been removed from the KC-767 to become the KC-767AT that would make it cheaper than what it was offered last time ?
Nothing has been removed, but something has been added. That is close congressional scrutiny and the real threat of ordering the KC-30. Boeing will offer a realistic deal this time to the USAF.
Plain and simple, they know they have to provide an excellent cost to win. Companies are allowed to drop their prices when they bid a second time.
Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 9):
That $240 mil used to keep Airbus out of the game could be used for more Raptors
you might wanna make that Raptor, without the S
No the "S" is correct, $240M will buy about 3 additional RaptorS. Their cost is roughly $77M per.
Quoting Flighty (Reply 10): Most sources point to Airbus being cheaper. .....
So the Boeing COULD/SHOULD be cheaper. BUT Airbus strategically won't let that happen. Airbus will underbid Boeing because they must do so. So they will.
This is a confidential bidding process, neither side knows how much they have to bid to win because they don't know what they other side bid. No one knows, its all speculation. The "sources" can't identify themselves so its rumor. If we had an accurate "source" some serious government regulations would be being violated.
Quoting TropicBird (Reply 11): Linked below is the most detailed public report on the previous tanker scandal by the DoD Office of the Inspector General.
Great information! Thanks!
Tug
[Edited 2008-02-22 17:09:42]
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7489 posts, RR: 6 Reply 15, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9175 times:
In the end, I think the USAF will go with the Boeing proposal for two reasons:
1) They can use already-existing production jigs and the production line at PAE for the 767-200(ER).
2) They "footprint" of the plane on the ground is not much bigger than that of the KC-135A, especially the wingspan.
#1 is especially important, since that means far lower startup costs to get production up and going and means the USAF could buy as many as 300 tankers at reasonable cost.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10570 posts, RR: 53 Reply 16, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 9106 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 6): At the last round, the KC-330 was offered at a lower price than the KC-767. Do you have a source to say that the KC-767AT will be offered cheaper than the KC-30A this time around ?
Okay, Zeke, what is the fly away price Boeing offered for a KC-767AT/ What is the fly away price NG/EADS is offering for a KC-30A?
Quoting Zeke (Reply 8): Airbus will produce close to the total KC-X contract every 2 years or so with the current A330 supply chain.
That is correct, Airbus will build lots of A-330s in TLS. But that has nothing to do with NG producing KC-45s in MOB. Which ever airplane is selected as the KC-45, it will only (currently) be produced at a rate of 12-15 airplanes per year. So the current production rates of the A-330 or B-767 are meaningless to the USAF.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 8): EADS already has a facility in Mobile, and it already working on other Airbus programs like the A350 and A380.
That is true. But you cannot build airplanes in a couple of offices with computer stations and telephones for secrataries.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 8): Quoting NorCal (Reply 7):
It isn't a new airplane, it is parts of other 767s that Boeing has been building for decades.
If it isn't a new airplane, why did it take so long to he the KC-767 certified for Japan ?
Zeke, the KC-767J is built from the B-767-200ERC combi airplane. Even you have said the FAA certification was for the passengers being carried on the main deck same cargo floor as the cargo is.
You are just playing games here.
Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 9): Quoting NorCal (Reply 3):
the established supply chain,
as Zeke pointed out, the propesed 767 only exists on paper
Again, Zeke is correct, but he didn't say the KC-30A is also a "paper airplane", like the KC-767AT is.
Yes, I know Airbus has mostly completed and stored an A-330-200 for the KC-45 program. But she is in storage, and has not had any tanker modificatioins made to her, yet. Boeing also has a KC-767-200ER (KC-767A), in storage, without engines, but, IIRC she already has a Boom on her (the Airbus prototype does not have a Boom). If NG/EADS does not get the KC-45 contract, that stored A-330-200 will be configuered for delivery to an airline customer.
Quoting TropicBird (Reply 11): Anyone who doubts this was not an illegal and sweatheart deal for Boeing should read this.
I have always agreed that was a"sweetheart" deal for Boeing, and it was illegal activity. Those people (and maybe more) should have gone to jail, and I am a Boeing supporter.
Quoting RayChuang (Reply 15): In the end, I think the USAF will go with the Boeing proposal for two reasons:
1) They can use already-existing production jigs and the production line at PAE for the 767-200(ER).
2) They "footprint" of the plane on the ground is not much bigger than that of the KC-135A, especially the wingspan.
#1 is especially important, since that means far lower startup costs to get production up and going and means the USAF could buy as many as 300 tankers at reasonable cost.
I don't know about going to 300 tankers on this program, but I agree on your two main points.
BTW, I believe the USAF has put this $240M aside to out lawyer any protest. The looser of this contract will have to decide if they will spend more than that in Attorney Fees.
F27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1106 posts, RR: 6 Reply 17, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9032 times:
Quoting Tugger (Reply 14): No the "S" is correct, $240M will buy about 3 additional RaptorS. Their cost is roughly $77M per.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16): That is true. But you cannot build airplanes in a couple of offices with computer stations and telephones for secrataries.
It's a little bit bigger than that for one, they build eurocopters there
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10570 posts, RR: 53 Reply 18, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9035 times:
Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 17): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
That is true. But you cannot build airplanes in a couple of offices with computer stations and telephones for secrataries.
It's a little bit bigger than that for one, they build eurocopters there
But you still cannot build KC-45As or A-330-200Fs there, can you?
Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 17): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
but, IIRC she already has a Boom on her
it's not the boom they are offering, thatone only exists on paper
That is true, the Boeing 6th generation Boom is not built, yet. But, then again, that is why this KC-767-200ER and the A-330-200s a can both be called "prototypes" by the respective OEMs (neither is configuered anywhere near the final KC-45A configueration)..
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6561 posts, RR: 72 Reply 19, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9013 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16): Okay, Zeke, what is the fly away price Boeing offered for a KC-767AT/ What is the fly away price NG/EADS is offering for a KC-30A?
No idea, that is why I asked for a source. Last time around it was reported that they were getting the green 767 airframes for $65 million.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16): But that has nothing to do with NG producing KC-45s in MOB. Which ever airplane is selected as the KC-45, it will only (currently) be produced at a rate of 12-15 airplanes per year. So the current production rates of the A-330 or B-767 are meaningless to the USAF.
The non recurring costs have a lot to current and future production rates, so do the costs of spares. NG will be leveraging off an existing high volume supply chain, Boeing will need to ramp up a dead supply chain.
Boeing does not have the recent sales like EADS has with the A332F to spread the non recurring costs over. EADS will not only assemble the 175 tankers, but also the 200+ projected A332F aircraft (about 80 sold already) at Mobile. Boeing is trying to flog the 762F/762LRF/763F to industry, no one is taking it.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16): That is true. But you cannot build airplanes in a couple of offices with computer stations and telephones for secrataries.
Building a couple of hangers is not that complicated. The facility will only be need to be completed for the first production aircraft. Three out of the four test frames will be completed at the NG facility in Melbourne, the final test frame and the production aircraft will be completed in Mobile.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16): Zeke, the KC-767J is built from the B-767-200ERC combi airplane. Even you have said the FAA certification was for the passengers being carried on the main deck same cargo floor as the cargo is.
I said it was for FAA certification, not due to "passengers being carried on the main deck same cargo floor as the cargo". As far as I was aware, the tanker modifications caused issues with the ETOPS requirements.
The KC-767 is a modified 767-200ER, an airframe that is already FAA certified. The KC-767AT is based on the 767-200LFR which is not FAA certified, and then they will also need to get the KC-767AT certified.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16): Again, Zeke is correct, but he didn't say the KC-30A is also a "paper airplane", like the KC-767AT is.
Yes, I know Airbus has mostly completed and stored an A-330-200 for the KC-45 program. But she is in storage, and has not had any tanker modifications made to her, yet. Boeing also has a KC-767-200ER (KC-767A), in storage, without engines, but, IIRC she already has a Boom on her (the Airbus prototype does not have a Boom). If NG/EADS does not get the KC-45 contract, that stored A-330-200 will be configured for delivery to an airline customer.
The KC-30A and KC-30B are essentially the SAME. Same airframe, same wings, same engines, same boom, same hoses, and it has completed the flight testing phase of its civil certification in the tanker configuration.
This is a photo of the "KC-767-200ER (KC-767A), in storage, without engines, but, IIRC she already has a Boom on her" (must be the slim line boom, I cannot see it) http://microvoltradio.com/images/kpae1660.jpg
FYI, the booms, hoses, wing, flaps, engines, avionics that have been used on the previous 767 tankers, will not be used on the KC-767AT.
Time will tell, I think this will initially go to Boeing.
Boeing has not been having a good run of late with some contracts issued by the USAF, how many have been turned over by the GAO of late ?
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
That is true, the Boeing 6th generation Boom is not built, yet. But, then again, that is why this KC-767-200ER and the A-330-200s a can both be called "prototypes" by the respective OEMs (neither is configuered anywhere near the final KC-45A configueration)..
Tell us all, what MAJOR changes will NG have to make to the KC-30B to make it a KC-30A ?
The answer is nil, the difference is the addition of the A300 cargo door, the A330 and A300 share the same fuselage section.
F27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1106 posts, RR: 6 Reply 20, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 8993 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18): But you still cannot build KC-45As or A-330-200Fs there, can you?
no, but they have set up a production line there before, they know how the "banging with the whip goes" (old Dutch saying)
Also I would like to add that, as you have said yourselves so many times, a final assembly line isn't really rocking the boat. In terms of cost it is less than 5% of the total production and logistical chain. Why do you think there are 4 Eurofighter final assemblies? Cause it doesn't cost so much extra and it keeps the locals happy.
BTW, EADS WANTS to have a production line in the US no matter what. As has been said often before, they need to move costs into the dollar zone.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7489 posts, RR: 6 Reply 21, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8944 times:
One way that EADS could amortize the cost of the KC-30 tanker derivative of the A330-200 is to build also the A330-200F palleted package freighter at the same production line in Alabama.
And that could actually be an equally lucrative contract, too--DHL, FedEx, UPS, and TNT N.V. need a lot of new freighter planes for expansion and to replace their fleet of planes that are starting to rapidly age. The A330-200F could be very attractive to these freight carriers for transcon USA and routes on intra-European and Europe to Middle East routes.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6561 posts, RR: 72 Reply 22, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 8907 times:
Quoting RayChuang (Reply 21): One way that EADS could amortize the cost of the KC-30 tanker derivative of the A330-200 is to build also the A330-200F palleted package freighter at the same production line in Alabama.
That was the EADS plan, write the non recurring costs off over the tankers and freighters.
We should all know on Monday when it is announced, but expect it to go to Boeing.
BHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2694 posts, RR: 6 Reply 23, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 8871 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16): That is correct, Airbus will build lots of A-330s in TLS. But that has nothing to do with NG producing KC-45s in MOB.
Actually, considering the better position it puts them in to negotiate with suppliers, I'd consider it very signficant.
Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 17): It's a little bit bigger than that for one, they build eurocopters there
No, they don't. That's one state over in MS.
Current EADS activity in Mobile area is as follows(that I know of):
BFM - Engineering center, proposed site for KC-30/A330F assembly.
MOB - CASA service and training center. I think they also have some support people there for Eurocopter. In both cases, this is primarily to support USCG aviation
Tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 3283 posts, RR: 4 Reply 24, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8811 times:
Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 20): BTW, EADS WANTS to have a production line in the US no matter what. As has been said often before, they need to move costs into the dollar zone.
Quoting RayChuang (Reply 21): One way that EADS could amortize the cost of the KC-30 tanker derivative of the A330-200 is to build also the A330-200F palleted package freighter at the same production line in Alabama.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 22): That was the EADS plan, write the non recurring costs off over the tankers and freighters.
There are strict rules on what can be "spread" and what must be charged. The USA does not allow a government contract to pay for infrastructure and technology that is then used for commercial/civilian purposes. Money would at the very least have to be paid back/refunded but often a new infrastructure is required to be set up. In other words, EADS could not sell the KC-30 "at cost" and have the USA to pay for the setup of a production line here and then make the money back on the profit from commercial production of the freighters.
Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 17):
Quoting Tugger (Reply 14):
No the "S" is correct, $240M will buy about 3 additional RaptorS. Their cost is roughly $77M per.
???? I must be missing something....
Tug
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
25 AirFrnt: Flyaway F-22 raptor cost is somewhere around 120 million (although that number may be going down shortly).
26 Legoguy: I have read the USAF will order the tankers in 3 batches. Could this order end up split between the 767 and A330? With 2 batches going to one manufact
27 FRNT787: I dont think so. The orders will all likely go to Boeing, due to the fact that the KC-767 is the closest in size and capability to their KC-135 fleet
28 AirRyan: Let's buy decades old technology for our warfighters so they can last us for the next three or four decades, great move! And exactly why Boeing has n
29 FRNT787: The only platform we can buy that is not decades old is the 787 or A350. Our government does not need this the 767 or A330 will work just fine. They
30 F27Friendship: thanks for the info. I know at least Eurocopters are being serviced their. Mistakingly I also assumed the assembly was located there you misunderstoo
31 KC135TopBoom: But, I think a green B-767-200LRF would have a signficantly higher price than that, as will a green A-330-200/-200F will (both before the tanker conv
32 BHMBAGLOCK: We don't even know the pricing yet so you're very much jumping the gun here. No problem, many Americans confuse AL and MS as well; other states too.
33 F27Friendship: I thought EADS/NG did not offer to use the A330-200F in the end, as the USAF stressed they "should not put too much emphasis on the cargo mission"
34 Par13del: I have seen this mentioned in other tanker threads but only as it relates to Boeing, if I missed the reference to EADS / LM I apologize. Boeing cannot
35 Wingman: If the proposals are competitive then this should go to Boeing. I don't see how anyone in their right mind can argue on behalf of the US government wi
36 Zeke: No that is incorrect. I have pulled you up on this several times before, and provided you with links (you can search those threads). This has been re
37 Lumberton: But...gee...just last month the French asked for bids from both Boeing and EADS for their 16 (?) tankers! Isn't that evidence of a real "two way" str
38 AirRyan: Based upon numerous examples of commerical airlines opting for Airbus over Boeing because Airbus underbid Boeing for the contract for the sake of bus
39 KC135TopBoom: The 3 batches of tankers is spread over the next 45-50 years of buying airplanes. They are the current KC-X program, then the KC-Y program, and final
40 Zeke: That is like trying to say the 762LRF is more advanced than the 787 because it was launched later ? Nothing is more advanced about it. Well I have as
41 KC135TopBoom: Well, I glade you finally agree the B-767-200LRF is more advanced. I have. Because you cannot accept that the B-767 is better than the A-330 for what
42 Zeke: I don't, nor does anyone else here thinks the 767-200LFR is more advanced than the 787 or A330. Nothing, zip, is more advanced about it, it is a legg
43 XT6Wagon: The KC767 would make a poor replacement for the KC-10. However we don't know what exactly they will ask for in the replacement for the KC-10. They ma
44 Bennett123: Given that tranche 2/3 will not be ordered for decades, it seems unlikely that the A330 or B767 will be in the running.
45 KC135TopBoom: The lower deck cargo space on a B-777-200 is 5330 ft3. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_200product.html The lower deck cargo space on
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10570 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 991 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6561 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1106 posts, 
Plain and simple, they know they have to provide an excellent cost to win. Companies are allowed to drop their prices when they bid a second time. 
for one, they build eurocopters there
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
