• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:54 am

With this thread Usaf Decided On KC-30 (by Andrej Feb 29 2008 in Military Aviation & Space Flight) getting quite long, please continue the discussion here. Please keep the discussion civil.
 
Arniepie
Posts: 1428
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:00 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:22 am

With this second part starting let me put in a "new idea" as to why the USAF decided to go for the EADS/NG combo besides it being the better performer.

Maybe they also are (rightfully) unhappy with the idea of only 2 major suppliers available (B&LM) and now with NG getting this contract they still have the option to choose from at least 2 suppliers when the need arises , B&NG for the larger airframes and B&LM for the fighters and other smaller frames.

This contract gave them the best possible excuse to go for a non-Boeing product, it won on technical merit, it isn't that more expensive and the majority of the money and work will stay in the US.


Just an idea, just my  twocents 
[edit post]
 
ZBBYLW
Posts: 1612
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:17 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:45 am

WOW, I spent the evening out rolled into the driveway at 340 AM and decided I might as well check to see if anything happened. This is GREAT news for NG and EADS. Congrats to them, I can only assume they are partying hard tonight! Again this is great news and this will be interesting to follow in the coming months to see what Boeing does in response.

Cheers,
(A very happy) Chris
Keep the shinny side up!
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4296
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:50 am

I am totally surprised, however, somehow I have expected this decision, because they were so reluctant to tell what they have decided on. I think they would have presented a Boeing solution to the public earlier.
 
NBGSkyGod
Posts: 807
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 7:30 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:51 am

As a Boeing fan I am a little disappointed that the Air Force went with the KC-45 program rather than the KC-767, however I believe that they made a good decision based on the fact that this will bring more skilled labor to the Mobile area, as well as other locations around the country. Another item I didn't see mentioned was that several other countries have purchased the KC-767 including Italy and Japan. I saw in another post that production was lagging, but this may encourage them to attempt to rectify this issue. Another issue is that in the future, I believe, is that Boeing will receive more orders for C-17s, P-8s, and will have more preference for future projects.
Pilots are idots, who at any given moment will attempt to kill themselves or others.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:55 am



Quoting Nbgskygod (Reply 4):
Another issue is that in the future, I believe, is that Boeing will receive more orders for C-17s, P-8s, and will have more preference for future projects.

You can almost bet on a new C-17 order from the Air Force. Sort of a peace offering.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17049
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:38 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 5):
You can almost bet on a new C-17 order from the Air Force. Sort of a peace offering.

Also a way to keep two suppliers going.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6661
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:49 pm



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 1):
Maybe they also are (rightfully) unhappy with the idea of only 2 major suppliers available (B&LM) and now with NG getting this contract they still have the option to choose from at least 2 suppliers when the need arises , B&NG for the larger airframes and B&LM for the fighters and other smaller frames.

This is a military contract, purchasing equipment to protect and defend the nation, even if two suppliers are demanded, the other US company should have thrown in a US designed a/c rather than going for the money and just building under licence another companies product, if the US Airforce had cut out the middle man - NG - in this purchase, I'm certain the purchase price directly from EADS would have been much lower.
 
voodoo
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 12:14 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:50 pm

I assume the USAF KC-30s would end up with GE engines (Wiki does not mention Pratts) ?
Do the RAAFs (+ Saudi, UAEs) have... what? R-R? RAF is a given.
` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:51 pm

Interesting quote from a USAF official on the BBC news article -

Quote:

Gen Arthur J Lichte, commander of the US Air Force's Air Mobility Command, said the winning design had many advantages over Boeing's tanker.

"More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more patients that we can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7272272.stm
 
na
Posts: 9128
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:05 pm



Quoting Moo (Reply 9):
More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more patients that we can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability

With the USAF itself saying that the Airbus is such a superior product, I think political resistance was the real time-consuming issue in this decision.
 
vfw614
Posts: 3163
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:07 pm

Fact simply is that the USAF at one point had to order from Airbus as Lockheed and MDD are no longer around in the transport aircraft business and there is only one US supplier left. How can all those denouncing the decision seriously believe that it would be in the best interest of the USAF and the US taxpayer to make the USAF an eternal Boeing slave, no matter what quality and what price Boeing are able or willing to offer. The A330MRTT is the perfect product to make that point to the US mil aviation industry as the product has a competitive advantage and is not a combat aircraft. Apart from that, as probably has been pointed out ad nauseam, the A330MRTT in a way is as much a US product as the Boeing 767 is a non-US aircraft. It needs to be understood that building large aircraft nowadays is always an international process and in the end only the brand under which the aircraft is sold makes it "US" or "European". Nicely illustrated by the way by the reporting on that deal where most US reports fully concentrate on the NG link rather than the Airbus pedigree of the platform.

I guess sooner or later airlines like Delta, American and Southwest will understand the rationale behind this decision as well.
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:11 pm

Just so you know, the media in the US is really playing this up. The word "outsourcing" keeps coming up and people are getting in an uproar over this. This ain't over yet.  Wink
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6661
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:18 pm



Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 11):
How can all those denouncing the decision seriously believe that it would be in the best interest of the USAF and the US taxpayer to make the USAF an eternal Boeing slave, no matter what quality and what price Boeing are able or willing to offer.

reminds me of family, where it is ok for a family member to insult each other but if an outsider tries it??????

I think you need to look beyond Boeing and think American, if the only American company that can build a/c is Boeing what does that say for the industrial capacity of the nation? At the end of the Cold War, the "military industrial complex" was quoted by some as being used to keep the US economy afloat with jobs, funds etc., the more this complex gets out-sourced simply means that US taxpayers will have to put up even more as a greater percentage of their taxes have to go "abroad".
 
trex8
Posts: 4576
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:19 pm



Quoting Voodoo (Reply 8):
I assume the USAF KC-30s would end up with GE engines (Wiki does not mention Pratts) ?
Do the RAAFs (+ Saudi, UAEs) have... what? R-R? RAF is a given.

GEs were the engine selected by NG for their proposal. RAAF have GE (and chosen for commonality with QF who are doing the mx). Not sure if the Saudis, UAE have selected engines(or even have a choice)
 
Arniepie
Posts: 1428
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:00 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:24 pm



Quoting Par13del (Reply 7):
even if two suppliers are demanded, the other US company should have thrown in a US designed a/c rather than going for the money and just building under licence another companies product,

Sorry but that is just not a realistic option.
A proven design was preferred and besides the 767 there was nothing in the US that would be a viable choice.
It's not as if you can just quickly come up with some new airframe, if that was the case LM might have entered the race too.
The reality is/was that the 330 is the only real contender (and a better one at that) and both NG and EADS had the right idea on how to get the best chance of securing the contract by teaming up.
It is still no crime to out think your competitor and that is exactly what happened here.

As for it having it to be "an American plane" is at best purely patriotically motivated reason.
In history more US defense companies have chosen to join forces with foreign defense contractors because of an already existing platform that would fit the needs for the military.
A wise choice to do and because of the vastness of many defense contracts from the US DOD most are extensively Americanized anyway making it in reality an as good as American product (AV8B, GOSHAWK,LAKOTA,...).

Some of you guys need to realize that there is more than just your own dot on the globe and sometimes it is best to just rely on what befriended nations can offer (I'mcertainly not adressing our American friends alone with this statement!! ).


PS Like stated in other threads, I sincerely hope some (also Belgium) nations go for the C17 as an addition to their transport fleets, lord knows we can use them, and now that the US decided to go for our tankers, maybe we could buy what we need from them.
It won't be as hard to sell to the public because a lot of large weapon system come out of the US anyway but it will certainly be more of a budgetary problem , we are just not always as prepared to pay for what is necessary for our armed forces as people are across the pond.
[edit post]
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:32 pm

From part I
You guys post faster than I can read!

Some seem seriously put out. Does Ikra really think this after a few hours to contemplate?

Quoting Ikramerica,Part I reply=13:
Seriously, our military has a LONG history of buying the WRONG product, products that don't work, that crash, that explode. So assuming it must be the better choice is a big assumption.

If he did, he should forward his opinions to our Min for Defence, Joel Fitzgibbon, who is even now examining dominantly US products that the Howard government was desirous of buying.

A more balanced and overall, suggestion that gives greater balance to the outcomes is:

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK,Part I reply=101:
I think in the long run this will be the best economic choice for the US as well. We'll get freighter production which is an incremental add to the economy and I think we'll suddenly see a lot more interest in some of our more unique products from Europe such as the C-17 as there will now be little to no political price to pay for buying these US products.

The current balance of US purchases of European military equipment against European purchases of US military equipment has to be heavily in favour of the US. Over time, this tanker decision, provided it is implemented could have a far more favourable impact on US sales of military equipment than if the tankers had been bought from Boeing.

The other balancing factor is that perhaps twice or or more than twice as many freighters will come out of Mobile than this lot of tankers. That will be a huge benefit to the US. The arguments about assembly and building are really strange. Effectively most of what would have been done in Toulouse on these planes is surely now going to be done in the US. And yet for some, this is still not right. What do you want to happen to the French for goodness sake?

With the number of new planes now up over ?300, surely it is time for a new set of engines as Zeke suggests, at least bleed versions of the GEnx, and perhaps later versions of the Trents, if not Lights beloved Pratts?

So far, it appears globalization is alive, perhaps not well in some localities, but alive. Let us see how it fares during the "night".

Ed correction it to if

[Edited 2008-03-01 05:34:34]
 
A388
Posts: 7157
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 3:48 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:49 pm

I have not read the entire previous thread about this but why hasn't Boeing offered a B767-300ER based variant of the tanker to be able to better compete with the A330 Tanker? Were there specific reasons for this? Like others have said, Boeing is still in the running as this is the first order for the tanker replacement. I also wonder what will happen when Democrats will win the elections. Will this order still stand? I assume if it will be cancelled, the US Government will have to pay a very high fine. I don't think NG/EADS will take it lightly if it would be cancelled.

In any case, congrats to NG/EADS for winning this deal.

A388
 
trex8
Posts: 4576
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:55 pm



Quoting A388 (Reply 17):
I also wonder what will happen when Democrats will win the elections. Will this order still stand?

there is very little precedent for an incoming administration of another party to cancel a contract to favor another contractor, canceling the whole program is not unknown but not likely to be the case here as the USAF is desperate for new tankers
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:58 pm

The -200ER was offered over the -300ER simply because both aircraft share the same wing, and lift the same amount of weight. The larger fuselage of the -300 means that though it can carry more cargo volume, it also carries less payload because of the increased weight of thte fuselage.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:11 pm



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 18):
there is very little precedent for an incoming administration of another party to cancel a contract to favor another contractor, canceling the whole program is not unknown but not likely to be the case here as the USAF is desperate for new tankers

They thought we were desperate for new bombers too, when Jimmy Carter took office.  Wink
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
trex8
Posts: 4576
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:15 pm



Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 20):
They thought we were desperate for new bombers too, when Jimmy Carter took office.  

when Ron Paul or Denis Kucinich are Prez we won't be needing any tankers, or Raptors , or lots of things! Smile
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:19 pm



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 21):

Yeah, in fact, I'll make a predicition: They'll cut the number of F-35 buys way down to the point where the per-unit cost is astronomical and then whine about how it's too expensive.  Wink
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
bhmbaglock
Posts: 2489
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:51 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:31 pm

The Mobile Press Register has an excellent article on this subject in today's paper:

http://www.al.com/news/press-registe...se/news/120436652776060.xml&coll=3

One interesting point is the following:

Quote:
"Boeing will probably try to overturn the result, but that will be hard because the Air Force did not rate their proposal as superior in any measure," said defense analyst Loren Thompson. "Anyone who tries to raise the 'made in America' banner on Boeing's behalf has to explain why they want to force an inferior plane on America's warfighters."

I think he makes some excellent points. He is with the Lexington Institute btw.
Where are all of my respected members going?
 
vfw614
Posts: 3163
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:36 pm

Not sure if it has been mentioned in one of the countless threads here but media quote sources that the Northrop proposal came out on top in four of five categories and the fifth categorie was dead even.

So apparently a 4,5 : 0,5 win and quite clearly a non-brainer.
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:40 pm



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 21):

when Ron Paul or Denis Kucinich are Prez we won't be needing any tankers, or Raptors , or lots of things!

And yet if Ron Paul was president and the USAF said "this is the most capable tanker available, and we need it," he'd support the purchase. Even if it's a foreign tanker. He's just sensible like that.
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:43 pm

In retrospect, maybe if BIDS realized the USAF wanted to replace apples with oranges then they could have offered the KC-777 and walked away with this.
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:59 pm



Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 11):
How can all those denouncing the decision seriously believe that it would be in the best interest of the USAF and the US taxpayer to make the USAF an eternal Boeing slave, no matter what quality and what price Boeing are able or willing to offer

"An eternal Boeing slave"...That's funny!

However the alternative is being a 'Slave" to another nation (France) who has consistently disagreed with US foreign policy to the point of actively seeking ways to disrupt or prevent the execution of this policy (No fly over France in the 1980's bombing campaign of Lybia).

In the future if France disagrees with US policy, they can couple no fly rights and withholding vital parts for the tanker fleet which will be even more important if required to take longer routes to the target, an even greater challenge if tankers are unavailable due to lack of spares from EADS.

On the other hand...I think the risk of a parts embargo is much less likely than the possibility of whole new EADS plant being destroyed by a future major hurricane since the production facility chosen is located directly on the Gulf of Mexico.

I wonder if data rights are part of the contract? If so, a parts embargo is moot since the US could have spares manufactured by anyone they choose.
 
vfw614
Posts: 3163
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:14 pm



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 27):
However the alternative is being a 'Slave" to another nation (France) who has consistently disagreed with US foreign policy to the point of actively seeking ways to disrupt or prevent the execution of this policy (No fly over France in the 1980's bombing campaign of Lybia).

Applying your logic to the US export sales of military aircraft, be it the F15, F16, F18, the C130, the C17, you name them, no nation with a clear mind should ever consider buying US stuff because the US could always refuse to provide spares etc... - or am I missing the logic in your argument?

*irony on*

And who knows, maybe, like in the 1940s, Japan will go to war with the US again - what will happen to the Boeing 787 then?

*irony out*


P.S.: The KC45A is not French - not even its civil stablemate, the A330-200. A French company happens to be an investor in a multinational company that produces the aircraft with production plants in France, in addition to a number of other European countries.
 
MigPilot
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:23 pm

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 28):
In the future if France disagrees with US policy, they can couple no fly rights and withholding vital parts for the tanker fleet which will be even more important if required to take longer routes to the target, an even greater challenge if tankers are unavailable due to lack of spares from EADS.

I wonder what highly classified parts for the A330 the devilish French should withhold? The ‘special’ parts that make it a KC30 will come from Northrop anyway.

[Edited 2008-03-01 07:27:27]
 
columba
Posts: 5043
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:30 pm



Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 29):

Applying your logic to the US export sales of military aircraft, be it the F15, F16, F18, the C130, the C17, you name them, no nation with a clear mind should ever consider buying US stuff because the US could always refuse to provide spares etc... - or am I missing the logic in your argument?

I have once been told that the Swiss once had problems with the US regarding spares of their F18s.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:34 pm



Quoting NA (Reply 10):
With the USAF itself saying that the Airbus is such a superior product, I think political resistance was the real time-consuming issue in this decision.

After watching that press conference yesterday it was very clear that Sue Payton and her group had long since came to the conlcusion that the NG bid was the superior one - it was that obvious to them.

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 26):
In retrospect, maybe if BIDS realized the USAF wanted to replace apples with oranges then they could have offered the KC-777 and walked away with this.

That is what I think is most interesting - Boeing's entire campaign to try and sell the KC-767 as the better product with such slogans such as "more is not better" in reference to the NG bid is amazing - I don't think the KC-777 would have fit the RFP and so it was either offer a souped up KC-767 or spend a lot of money and offer the KC-787 which they determined was not worth the money.

Response from the Washington State politicans:

Quote:
"We are shocked that the Air Force tapped a European company and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military," said U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who said she looked forward to confronting the Air Force about its choice.

Well perhaps Murray should be "shocked" that Boeing didn't offer the superior product for the USAF to choose - as Payton pointed out in the press conference the RFP listed nothing about "x" amount of jobs had to be created in the United States.

I still believe that both the H-92 and US-101 offer a superior product to the HH-47 in the CSAR-X bid as well because once again Boeing is trying to pass off to the USAF a 40+ year old design with modern parts that is supposed to last the USAF the next 40 years - just don't like that logic. Come on Boeing, when the USAF comes a calling how about a modern design?!

I personally beleive that Boeing will not contest this award and they will immediately begin work on the KC-787 for the next round - they gambled that they didn't have to spend the money on the KC-787 right now when they could still offer the KC-767ADV and they lost that bet - crying foul based soley on xenophobia and a lack of knowledge will only further hinder their relations with their best customer and that would not be wise.
 
Arniepie
Posts: 1428
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:00 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:34 pm



Quoting MigPilot (Reply 30):
I wonder what highly classified parts for the A330 the devilish French should withhold?

Probably the coffee machine, the most important piece of equipment anyway.
[edit post]
 
AWACSooner
Posts: 1755
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:35 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:45 pm

Ladies and gentlemen,
We all know that most of us (myself included) have passionate opinions about this decision. While I'm not trying to incite A vs. B on this, because both builders build great airplanes (although I prefer B for personal reasons), this decision cannot be rationalized in black and white. This decision was not just about which tanker suited the needs of the USAF, cause if it was just that, then they just went against the opinions of quite a few tanker gurus (and I've talked to a few at McConnell and Travis over the past few months about this ad nauseum, every single one of them said the 767 best suited the needs of the USAF much more than the 330); this decision was made mostly on politics.
Agree or disagree about the path the American military and national policy has taken since 9-11, we have managed to alienate ourselves from a lot of our allies. The only justification (by justification, I'm not talking about the merits of each plane) I can see for this decision is that we bought the A330 to make amends with the allies.
Many of you guys across the pond know how we American love our independence and image of self-reliance. That is especially true about our military. Hell, we issued an order that all uniforms for the military couldn't be made in any other country except the US. When decisions like yesterday's happen, our national pride takes a subconscious hit...many of us won't admit that. Thus the ruffled feathers that were so prevalently displayed in the first part of this thread are a clear example of that.
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1422
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:51 pm



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 1):
Maybe they also are (rightfully) unhappy with the idea of only 2 major suppliers available (B&LM) and now with NG getting this contract they still have the option to choose from at least 2 suppliers when the need arises , B&NG for the larger airframes and B&LM for the fighters and other smaller frames.

This contract gave them the best possible excuse to go for a non-Boeing product, it won on technical merit, it isn't that more expensive and the majority of the money and work will stay in the US.


Just an idea, just my

A very good opinion , IMO. I agree. I've stated for a while now that IMO, we are putting too many eggs in the B-Basket.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1422
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:53 pm



Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 34):
Ladies and gentlemen,
We all know that most of us (myself included) have passionate opinions about this decision. While I'm not trying to incite A vs. B on this, because both builders build great airplanes (although I prefer B for personal reasons), this decision cannot be rationalized in black and white. This decision was not just about which tanker suited the needs of the USAF, cause if it was just that, then they just went against the opinions of quite a few tanker gurus (and I've talked to a few at McConnell and Travis over the past few months about this ad nauseum, every single one of them said the 767 best suited the needs of the USAF much more than the 330); this decision was made mostly on politics.
Agree or disagree about the path the American military and national policy has taken since 9-11, we have managed to alienate ourselves from a lot of our allies. The only justification (by justification, I'm not talking about the merits of each plane) I can see for this decision is that we bought the A330 to make amends with the allies.
Many of you guys across the pond know how we American love our independence and image of self-reliance. That is especially true about our military. Hell, we issued an order that all uniforms for the military couldn't be made in any other country except the US. When decisions like yesterday's happen, our national pride takes a subconscious hit...many of us won't admit that. Thus the ruffled feathers that were so prevalently displayed in the first part of this thread are a clear example of that.

Target aquired again.  checkmark 
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:53 pm



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 32):
Well perhaps Murray should be "shocked" that Boeing didn't offer the superior product for the USAF to choose - as Payton pointed out in the press conference the RFP listed nothing about "x" amount of jobs had to be created in the United States.

Cut her some slack, she is a politician she needs some good sound bites for the voters and she needs to at least try to appear to protect jobs in her state.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 32):
I personally beleive that Boeing will not contest this award and they will immediately begin work on the KC-787 for the next round - they gambled that they didn't have to spend the money on the KC-787 right now when they could still offer the KC-767ADV and they lost that bet - crying foul based soley on xenophobia and a lack of knowledge will only further hinder their relations with their best customer and that would not be wise.

I hope they don't either the KC-30 clearly ended up being what the USAF wanted and being the better proposal. The KC-30 didn't lose a single category to the KC-767 (I thought it was going to do better) so to overturn the deal would be a crime. The USAF should get what they want and we do need to replace our tankers. I don't think Boeing will build KC-787 for the next round, they'll have a lot of regular 787s to build. I think the whole KC-135 fleet is going to replaced with KC-30s.

I would like to see EADS offer the GEnx engines on the KC-30 and also use the A332F as the base frame. That'll boost the capability.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 32):
I still believe that both the H-92 and US-101 offer a superior product to the HH-47 in the CSAR-X bid as well because once again Boeing is trying to pass off to the USAF a 40+ year old design with modern parts that is supposed to last the USAF the next 40 years - just don't like that logic. Come on Boeing, when the USAF comes a calling how about a modern design?!

Looking at the trends in military procurement it is not unreasonable to assume that Boeing may fade out of the defense business all together.
 
egnr
Posts: 408
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 8:31 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:56 pm



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 27):
However the alternative is being a 'Slave" to another nation (France)

EADS is headquartered in the Netherlands and operates under Dutch law.

The A330/KC-30/KC-45 has/will have wings that are designed and manufactured in the UK. The horizontal tailplane is manufactured in Spain. The vertical tail is manufactured in Germany. Fuselage sections come from Germany and France. The engines will be American. The landing gear is supplied by Messier Dowty (nose gear from France, main gear from Canada).

For the A330, France is primarily the location of final assembly - the role that Mobile, Alabama will take on for KC-45.
7late7, A3latey, Sukhoi Superlate... what's going on?
 
art
Posts: 2665
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:57 pm



Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 34):
This decision was not just about which tanker suited the needs of the USAF, cause if it was just that, then they just went against the opinions of quite a few tanker gurus (and I've talked to a few at McConnell and Travis over the past few months about this ad nauseum, every single one of them said the 767 best suited the needs of the USAF much more than the 330); this decision was made mostly on politics.

Are you saying that the evaluation of the 2 types was made on a political basis? How do you do that? I don't see how you set up a study to be empirical in nature and then execute that study in a political manner.

As for the final sanctioning of the deal by the politicians, that's a different matter altogether.
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1422
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:58 pm



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 32):
I personally beleive that Boeing will not contest this award and they will immediately begin work on the KC-787 for the next round - they gambled that they didn't have to spend the money on the KC-787 right now when they could still offer the KC-767ADV and they lost that bet - crying foul based soley on xenophobia and a lack of knowledge will only further hinder their relations with their best customer and that would not be wise.

Agreed. IMO, the wording in the Boeing Statement "we will make a decision concerning our possible options, keeping in mind at all times the impact to the warfighter and our nation. " Says exactly that.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1422
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 4:02 pm



Quoting NorCal (Reply 37):
Looking at the trends in military procurement it is not unreasonable to assume that Boeing may fade out of the defense business all together.

Could happen. Wait till the 2010 DOD budget. I see big problems on the horizon. No $.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 4:09 pm



Quoting NorCal (Reply 37):
Looking at the trends in military procurement it is not unreasonable to assume that Boeing may fade out of the defense business all together.

And remember what was Boeing's first major military project once they bought out McDD? That's right, a sole-source bid minus even the oversight of an approval by Boeing for the Super Hornet: that program always seemed shady to me and you're right - Boeing has an undesirable trend of trying to offer the US miltiary rehashed products and premium prices. Hopefully for everyone's sake Boeing will take this lesson to heart and the next time they submit a bid to the US military their product will the most modern and capable platform available.

Great article on the KC-30 (wish they'd keep that name and not go to the KC-45!) bid from AvWeek:

Quote:
Before they agreed to bid, Northrop Grumman/EADS officials insisted that the Air Force change its metrics to be more amenable to the team’s larger design. The Air Force subsequently added “Factor 5” to its KC-X evaluation criteria; it includes a review of both designs in various classified operational scenarios. The 767’s strength, according to Boeing, was its smaller size and ability to operate out of more airfields.

The Northrop/EADS option, far larger, can carry more fuel and cargo, but it will operate from fewer bases. Using this aircraft will require the Air Force to change its concept of operations that is pinned around the smaller KC-135.

Factor 5 was designed to level the playing field between the Boeing and Airbus designs, taking into account the fuel offload, range and ground handling attributes of both bids. It was this change that prompted Northrop Grumman officials to throw their hat into the ring.

Sue Payton, USAF acquisition chief, describes the winners’ past performance as “excellent,” and says the Northrop/EADS proposal had an “advantage” in the cost portion of the competition, though this factor was not weighed heaviest. She also adds that the aerial refueling and airlift attributes of the KC-45 were strong. The competition, however, was close, she adds.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...03038p1.xml&headline=Northrop/EADS Clinches U.S. Refueler Deal&channel=awst
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13173
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 4:13 pm

Relations between France and the United States have improved tremendously since the election of Nicolas Sarkozy, he is held in high regard in the United States for his comitment to improve the Trans-Atlantic relationship between the two countries. Sarkozy and Merkel have done a lot to improve relations with the United States , especially on a personal level with President George W. Bush who is not very popular in the US and is loathed in many parts of Europe.

If Chirac were still the leader of France I do not see this deal as being remotely possible.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
Acheron
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:14 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 4:18 pm

I find if funny the outrage of some here because the US didn't buy an "American-made" plane, yet the same people(and others) write dozens of lines criticizing Europe for buying "European-made" stuff.

Typical "Do as I say, not as I do"
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 4:26 pm

AWAC Sooner
This decision was not just about which tanker suited the needs of the USAF, cause if it was just that, then they just went against the opinions of quite a few tanker gurus (and I've talked to a few at McConnell and Travis over the past few months about this ad nauseum, every single one of them said the 767 best suited the needs of the USAF much more than the 330); this decision was made mostly on politics.


No, it wasn’t. This isn’t a political thing, this is a superior capability, better tanker airplane thing.

I’m a full time aerospace and defence writer, and I’ve been talking to tanker operators and experts (gurus, if you will) for 24 years. A handful of relatively junior KC-135 pilots have expressed a preference for the 767 – but in my experience they’ve been dyed in the wool Boeing fanboys, who know nothing about the KC-30’s capabilities. Anybody who has bothered to look at relative capabilities has always favoured the A330.

The justification isn't about mending bridges, it's about giving the US warfighter the best possible aircraft. Remember:

The KC-30 won in every major selection criteria category – it met the USAF’s requirements better than the KC-767.


Air Ryan
The Av Week article you praised made a fundamental beginner's mistake, claiming that the 767 had an "ability to operate out of more airfields." That's simply untrue. To re-hash:

"you'd expect the 767 to be able to use more airfields. But counter intuitive as it may seem, it cannot.

Unfortunately, the 767 cannot operate from shorter runways safely, because it can't stop as quickly as the A330, and it actually needs a longer balanced field length.

When the RAF was looking at the 767 and A330 it soon discovered that there were many existing real world tanker bases where the runways were too short for a fully laden 767 tanker to use, but where an A330 had no trouble - and indeed they did not find an airfield they wanted to use that could not accomodate the A330's take off and landing requirements.

I haven't checked, but I think that Balanced Field Lengths may be explained at:

www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/app-h.htm

So the A330 can actually operate at full weight than the KC-767.

And once operating, it can give away more fuel, more cost effectively, further from base, staying on station longer. This equals greater versatility, and greater capability - especially in the Afghan scenario.

You can therefore see that the USAF has therefore selected a better, more flexible tanker, that can operate from more real world tanker runways. In fact, it has been assessed that a KC-30 with a maximum fuel load could be supported by 625 airports globally, versus 465 for the KC-767 with a smaller fuel load."


I think you're unduly harsh on the Chinook, too. Like you, I believe that the US-101 offers a superior solution to CSAR-X (with S-92 second best, and HH-47 a distant third), but that's because of the importance of speed, deployability and noise signature. The Chinook may be a 40+ year old design but it's still the best heavylift helicopter out there, and in some roles, it's a much better aircraft than either the 101 or the S-92. Just not for CSAR/JPR.
 
MigPilot
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 4:38 pm

From some posts one could get the impression that Airbus planes are assembled by the French President himself together with a few assistants. We all know that Airbus is not only French, do we?  Wink

Think about it: main French workshare on the A330 is final assembly. This will now happen in Mobile/Al with the KC30 AND future A330F – instead TLS.

where are our French friends crying foul?  Wink
 
sebolino
Posts: 3495
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 4:56 pm

I think it's official now, at least according to KC135 and a few others : the hell has frozen.  Big grin
 
milan320
Posts: 818
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:25 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 5:06 pm

Could someone please explain to me why it's ok for European countries to buy an F-16 over a Eurofighter whereas the USAF choose to buy a plane from a European-based company and so many people in the US are in a hissy-fit?  hissyfit  Why the hipocrosy? After all, it was America who propagated a free-market approach to economics in the modern area ...
/Milan320

[Edited 2008-03-01 09:10:57]
I accept bribes ... :-)
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 5:11 pm

It's quite a season for underdogs this year.
Congratulations are in order. I think we all sincerely hope that the Mobile, Alabama plant will be more than the Potemkin Village I suspicion it to be.
Maybe Airbus will find that being in the dollar zone in the country that invented commercial aviation and knows more about it than anyone else is a nice place to be. And I hope that our colleagues in Europe will see their way through to buying American-it's good business, we've got good products, and the price is right.
The folks at EADS have been given a huge vote of confidence by some of the toughest and most persnickety people in the world. That says something-although they have yet to meet AFPRO and NAVPRO inspectors, which should prove interesting and informative.

The hard facts are, we wouldn't be having this discussion if there was any competition from a domestic builder, which points to the damned foolishness of letting Douglas go down the chute. It seems our military doesn't like monopolies any more than any one else.

Deconstruction has its drawbacks, and Boeing didn't help things any.

This one was theirs to win and they blew it.
All I've got to say to Jean and Luc and all the other rivet bashers and tank rats in Toulouse is, "Come on in. The water's fine, and there's great barbecue down the road."
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Sat Mar 01, 2008 5:23 pm



Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 29):
The KC45A is not French - not even its civil stablemate, the A330-200. A French company happens to be an investor in a multinational company that produces the aircraft with production plants in France, in addition to a number of other European countries.

You are entirely correct. By any objective measure, EADS/Airbus is a multinational company. But subjectively, it is identified - for better or worse - as a "French" company. Several news reports headlined the deal - inaccurately - as the Air Force selecting the French offering over the American offering.

The Pentagon can keep calling it a Northrop Grumman airplane, but as our friend notes below, NG hasn't designed anything except perhaps the boom, and the only thing American will be the engines.

And that's OK. I don't understand the desire of some to hide the heritage of this aircraft.

Quoting EGNR (Reply 38):
The A330/KC-30/KC-45 has/will have wings that are designed and manufactured in the UK. The horizontal tailplane is manufactured in Spain. The vertical tail is manufactured in Germany. Fuselage sections come from Germany and France. The engines will be American. The landing gear is supplied by Messier Dowty (nose gear from France, main gear from Canada).

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests