RAF tanker aircraft - Boeing ups bid

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5-891886,00.html

Cheers

WWW

[BEagle]

Nothing really new - they're obviously getting desperate!

Interesting that Boeing has just decided to open an 'ethics' office (no, not in Thouthend) - caught red-handed with information they shouldn't have, large areas of doubt regarding the deal with the USAF for tankers which simply aren't needed yet.......hmmm, one to watch, I think!

And as for having 't Bungling Baron on board - that should rule them out straight away!

Perhaps the new contract at a certain aerodrome near Cartoontown was the 'second place' trophy for Shirko?

[Rev Caption]

The papers have really been having fun with this one today (Fri 14 Nov). Two great quotes - one from Air Tanker (EADS) saying that the ex-BA jets are too old, (stated by an ex Senior Executive from BAES), and the other from Boeing stating that the Air Tanker cost estimates are laughable. I wonder which one of them is lying the most.

But a short pause while British Airways enters the fray to defend the Boeing bid and to state that their jets (which are still in revenue service) have only flown an average of about 10000 hours each, and have at least as much again left before they fall apart. Now, realistically would we expect them to say anything else?

Given that these aircraft are supposed to be part of a lean, mean strategic tanker and airlift force, and that they are supposed to be used constantly, earning civil revenue when they are not needed by the RAF et al, I wonder how long they will last. And isn't it true to say that ageing aircraft tend to develop more problems the older they get!

Oh well, I am sure that it will come straight in the end... just like the NIMWACS.

God Bless y'all

Rev C

[sprucemoose]

Rev C,

All true and all valid, but don't forget that the AirTanker bid also involves an undisclosed balance of new vs used airframes.

The sh1t slinging on this competition is without compare, in my experience, but then it is worth a big pot of cash.

Moose

[G Fourbee]

Anyone know whose "bin ends" Air Tanker are offering as their used fleet?

[BEagle]

Well, weasly one, perhaps that should be "Boeing f*cks up bid"?:

"Boeing dismisses CFO Sears, and Darleen Druyun
(24Nov03, 14:18 GMT, 213 words)


Boeing has dismissed CFO Mike Sears for unethical conduct in relation to the circumstances surrounding the hiring of former US Government official Darleen Druyun as deputy general manager of its Missile Defense Systems unit.

Sears, who had been tipped as a potential successor to Boeing CEO Phil Condit, will leave the company with immediate effect. Druyun has also been dismissed.

She has been at the centre of allegations that Boeing was passed Airbus pricing information related to its bid to sell A330 tankers to the USA in competition with the Boeing 767 – something that the company denies. Today’s announcement does not link the dismissals to that matter.

Boeing says in a statement: “Sears was dismissed for violating company policies by communicating directly and indirectly with Druyun about future employment when she had not disqualified herself from acting in her official government capacity on matters involving Boeing. In addition, an internally initiated review found both attempted to conceal their misconduct.”

Condit says “compelling” evidence of the misconduct has emerged over the last two weeks. "Upon review of the facts, our board of directors determined that immediate dismissal of both individuals for cause was the appropriate course of action,” he says.

The company has named James Bell, SVP finance and corporate controller, as acting CFO."

So, with inside knowledge of Airbus pricing information alleged, how certain can one be that Boeing wouldn't have passed any of such information on to their TTSC chums? If they had it, of course.... Hardly surprising, perhaps, that they should allegedly refer to AirTanker's bid as 'laughable'........

When is the decision due?

[Jackonicko]

'Boeing corrupt' hardly seems like news, BEags.....

[Art Field]

And are you sure that no Frenchman would stoop so low?.

[BEagle]

Well, no-one has suggested as much. Although anyone could pass on commercially confidential information even under a no-disclosure agreement, it seems that only Boeing have actually had to set up a specific 'ethics' office in order to prevent further such charges.

Following the well-documnted Lockheed affair of some years ago and Boeing's behaviour over recent high-profile programmes, it's probable that behaviour going rather beyond 'competitor intelligence' is quite commonplace. Some, however, have been caught at it!

And no, given the French confidence in the excellence of their products, I doubt whether they would have any reason to need to go snuffling through Boeing's dustbins looking for information like a pig after truffles!

I guess that 'decision day' concerning the FSTA programme can't be that far away. The DPA website makes no mention of 'by the end of the year' any more: "Final bids were received from both consortia on 30 April 2003. Assessment of these bids is now underway. The PFI Service is expected to commence in 2008, leading to full service capability by 2012. "


- it's only TTSC (or are you 'The Tanker Team' this week, Arters?) who state that the decision will be made in Dec 2003...."Key FSTA Dates: "December 2003 Preferred Bidder, November 2004 Contract Award"

[sprucemoose]

Not so, BEags; AirTanker's bid director said the preferred bidder decision will be made "before Christmas" during a briefing early this month.

He didn't say which Christmas, mind you!!!

Fourbee - believe the surplus A330-200s will be from the current Emirates fleet; suggestions of a swap deal when they get their A380s.

[BEagle]

The AirTanker website merely states that 'A decision on preferred bidder is expected by the end of the year.......'

Recent events highlight that perhaps the passenger carrying capability of the FSTA needs to be looked at more closely. If it becomes impossible to use civil ac to truck folks back and forth to Tony's wars due to Baghdad MANPAD type risks, the availability of sufficient military transports becomes even more important!

Needless to say, even with max fuel the A330-200 comprehensively outclasses the old ex-ba 767s in the air transport role!

[sprucemoose]

At the risk of slipping into pedantics, BEags, TTSC are also saying only that they expect a decision before year-end.

I guess the 50% more fuel adverts aren't having enough of an impact, so now it's vital that we're going to buy a grunt carrier? Let's hope that AT are actually offering "sufficient military transports", as you put it, because we're already looking at significantly fewer hoses up there, aren't we?

If the IAB has actually sat on this issue, then I hope we're near a decision - the continual sh1t slinging between the bidders is getting more than a bit boring!

:yuk:

[BEagle]

Sprucems, the difference is that TheTTankSerCteam (or whatever their name is this week) seem to think that a 'key date' is Dec 2003, whereas AirTanker only say that it's 'expected' by then. But that's probably semantics, as you imply. I presume you meant semantics rather than pedantry?

'Sufficient military transports'? Bums on seats, laddie, bums on seats. Not just airframe numbers, rather the product of (seats available at max fuel weight) x (numbers of aeroplanes).

But the competition isn't just capability driven. Had that been the case, the A330 would already have been selected. It'll be compromised by 'affordability' - how much we're prepared to spend on worthwhile aeroplanes which are actually needed compared to the amount we continue to pi$$ down the sink on Cold War relics like Bureaufighter and Nimrod MRA F*ck knows when.......

Not to mention Chinook HC3.........

[sprucemoose]

Fair enough BEags, but TTSC (and despite their dubious "the tanker team" self-title, their set-up has been much more settled than AT's over the last couple of years) claim to be offering a fully compliant bid for what the UK has asked for. If we need a bigger aircraft (or bums on seats, rather than "AAR and some AT"), then it has to go back out for a re-bid. And what then? BZZ struggles to house a dozen A380s or 747s?

I quite agree with you - what the RAF really needs is more AT and AAR capacity, but transports just aren't as sexy as fighters and aircraft carriers, so this project just isn't getting the column inches. You're quite right that MRA4, HC3 and Typhoon are just leaking money, but every time the FSTA decision gets slipped, guess who's paying for it...

Pedantics, semantics, whatever...

:O

[BEagle]

But by being 'settled for the last few years', they haven't moved with the times and reacted to the obvious changes in capability needs highlighted by GW2....

The 767 doesn't offer much more than a VC10K3 in terms of being a tanker - and it doesn't have a probe to increase its own fuel state. In the AT role it doesn't have a freight door - everything goes downstairs. As it does in the A330 - except that the 330 can take 'standard' LD3 baggage bins in pairs athwartship which the 767 can't - and the A330 is a far more modern and capable aeroplane all round.

There probably won't be many A330s, A400Ms or anything else at Brize at any given time if the AT/AR fleet is employed properly - and most training will rely upon synthetic devices.

[sprucemoose]

And therein lies the potential problem - the lessons learned from Afghanistan and Telic clearly show the utility of a Timmy-sized platform for AT/AAR in time of war, but are these going to be noted?

But, is Mr Brown really going to agree to shell out for a larger aircraft that might be too big in peacetime? And haven't we already pushed enough work to Airbus (A400M) and EADS (Skynet 5) recently? What is Bush demanding of phoney Tone in terms of interoperability (you know - we both have 767s, although yours are a different model, with different engines, different AAR kit and a lower fuel capacity)? And even if we do get the biggest tanker going, we'll spend all our time topping up USN/USMC fighters, rather than our own!!

We should discuss this over a beer some day!

:}

[BEagle]

Yes indeed!

How much politics was there behind Boeing pushing the 767 on the USAF who don't really need it yet? A way of keeping the 767 line going, perhaps, whilst they assemble their excretia over the 7E7 Dreamchaser or whatever it's called?

[G Fourbee]

Sprucemoose, you are wrong about the AAR equipment, I think. I believe both contracts are using the new Smiths product - a big risk reduction for FSTA!

[BEagle]

G4B - not so!

"All aircraft will be capable as 2-point tankers, equipped with 2 Flight Refuelling Limited Mk32B 900E pods. A number of the fleet will also be capable of being fitted as 3-point tankers.

Very few internal changes are required to the A330-200 to modify it for the air-to-air refuelling role. In particular no additional fuel tanks are required.

As the A330-200 shares the same wing as the 4-engined A340, there is a pre-strengthened location available for mounting the wing AAR pods. As a consequence, refuelling pods can be fitted with minimal modifications and without any strengthening required to the aircraft.

The full passenger and cargo capability can be used while the A330-200 is configured for AAR operations. The cabin remains fully configured and the cargo compartments are unobstructed.

The conversions will be carried out by the Cobham Group, UK world leaders in tanking technology and air operations."

So no, it doesn't look as though the A330-200 will use the same unproven Smiths' pods which the KC-767A and TTSC's old Boeings plan to use...

[G Fourbee]

Hmmm - wonder whether anybody from the USMC would share your confidence?

[Roland Pulfrew]

G4B

What is your point regarding the Cobham/Flight Refuelling kit? I understand that TTSC is offering Smiths AirTanker is offering FRL/Cobham. The Mk 32 is in service; the Smiths kit is an unproven and unflown design. I understand that any perceived problems are not with the (Mk 32) pod but with the servicing (or lack of) of the pod.

[BEagle]

....and Roly, by the time FSTA enters service the -900 series pods will have been flying for several years on other ac as well.

Wasn't there a court case about the Smiths' lot being accused of intellectual property rights 'acquisition'? Another sad addition to the list of 'concerns' at Boeing's 'ethics', perhaps?

[BEagle]

..and G4B (presumably one of the ex-Victor brigade?), the 'bin ends' to which you refer would, I guess, be a lot younger than the old Boeings from ba being proposed by TTSC.

My guess would be that the bmi A330s apparently on their way back from SAA would be a hot favourite?

Meanwhile Phil Condit has just resigned as Boeing's CEO - and Airbus has secured yet another 20+ aircraft order....

[GrantT]

...And it just gets better for Boeing.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20031202/D7V6EUNG1.html

[Ric Capucho]

Yes, the Boeing tanker deal in the USA is in a bit of a mess. Allegations (ahem) that a Pentagon official or six might have taken a wee back-hander.

Shurely not trooooo, perish the thought.

But any hypothetical back-hander needs at least two parties: the 'bungee' and the 'bunger'. I wonder who the bunger could be when there's a $18 billion tanker deal at stake?

Allegedly.

Now, I wonder whether the UK government wants to get dragged into this (alleged) buggah's muddle, when they could stick a roundel onto the side of an A330 instead? More popular with British industry, more 'European' for the EU fans, more 'synergies' (hawk, spit, I hate that bloody word) with our European military counterparties, better paid jobs for the lads when they leave the RAF to pursue a career in the airlines. Whoops, forget that last one.

Politics and sticky sh1t'll settle this one, not cost and logic.

Ric

[Art Field]

Todays Telegraph says UK decision may be delayed to Jan 04.

[Art Field]

And would you believe it, todays Telegraph says it will not be delayed. Make your mind up somebody.

[ORAC]

There is no delay, all slippages are on schedule.....

[BEagle]

Arters - another month's delay means yet another month's fatigue on those old Boeings of ba.....

You should see what the European press are saying about the EADS/Boeing issue....

[G Fourbee]

Beagle - do you have an inside track to the fatigue situation of the BA fleet? If not, then shut up (I respectfully sugest).

[Jackonicko]

'With respect' G4B it doesn't require a degree in rocket science to know that the BA 767s are old and hard used, and that despite excellent maintenance are showing their age.

Nor does it require too much intelligence to know that the fact that they are too narrow to take two pallets side by side make them inferior freighters to the A330s. Nor that they need to use underfloor tanks to get anywhere close to the required fuel offload figures, further compromising their AT capability.

The RAAF are now looking hard at the A330, and there is some pressure on the USAF to do the same.

That's because its broadly the right size to meet the requirement.

Now if Boeing were offering a tanker 777...... it would be too big and too expensive, but perhaps a little closer to what's needed.

[BEagle]

Hmm, G4B, touched a nerve perhaps?

ba's factbook 2003 show the following utilisation rates for their 767-336 fleet:

Longhaul 11.6 hours/day average/aircraft
Shorthaul 6.6 hours/day average/aircraft

So, that's around 200-350 hours per ac per month clocked up by these ageing ac every time the programme decision is delayed.

Hardly 'inside knowledge' - it's just that they're old and getting older!

And their capability, whichever way you try to hide it, is waaaaaaaaay less than that of the A330-200 in every area!

Errr - and Jacko, they're not even planned to have any additional tanks. So, only the same max fuel capacity as they have at present. Good, eh? One wonders why even the USAF are being offered elderly designs such as the 767 when Boeing is already looking at the 7E7... Jobs for the boys being pushed hard after the post 11 Sep downturn in order to keep domestic production lines running and the politicians happy rather than meeting a clear defence requirement?

[sprucemoose]

BEagle - any chance you could enlighten us about the average daily hours being put on AirTanker's surplus A330-200 fleet, wherever they are going to come from? Emirates, perhaps? Surely if the BA jets are "ageing aircraft" - and the youngest is about six years old - then surplus A330s are too?

Better stick to the size argument (although the 767 is fully compliant) - or are we going to go back to the troop transport issue again?

What a difference a year makes! 24 September 2002: "My personal preference? Well, the Skunk Works tanker concept looks very interesting. But with BA shares plummeting yet again, we could make them an offer they can't refuse for their 767-300ERs". Hmm - wonder who said that...

1 October 2002: "One of the reasons (according to Flight) that the Italians turned away from an Airbus tanker was that the A330 was simply too big for many applications..."

:uhoh:

[BEagle]

I have no more definite knowledge of where the A330-200s will come from than you do, although I have some guesses. In any case, they'll be younger than the 767s no matter what.

What a difference a year makes? Indeed. Something called GW2 and the change in operational imperative away from Cold War philosophy towards the long range capability now more clearly indicated. The basing issue is nihi ad rem; it's purely the age and lower fuel capacity which mitigate against ba's old ac. It would indeed have been a smart move to make Uncle Nigel an offer he couldn't refuse and to have spent money bringing up the 767s fuel capacity to the 90+ tonnes we'd anticipated, had that been done a while back....and a freight door!

But that didn't happen and now the choice looks as though it'll be between old, 73 tonne (fuel) jets with limited AT capabilities at high fuel weights and also need long runways at such weights (particularly at high ISA dev) - or younger, vastly more capable 111 tonne (fuel) jets which have a much better performance.

Even an earlier Boeing acquaintance of mine admitted that the 330's runway performance was better than any 767's.

[sprucemoose]

But if the operational imperitive is now for a larger aircraft, shouldn't the contract be opened for bids again to reflect this? One of my sources told me last month that the MoD has made absolutely no noises to suggest that the straight VC10 replacement that the UK has asked for is viewed as having insufficient fuel or AT capability, so maybe this decision is going to be more status quo than capability upgrade? I agree with you that a larger aircraft with more fuel and cargo capacity is the right way to go, but only if money were no object. Which it clearly isn't.

With all due respect, aircraft age is a red herring, as military usage rates will be way lower than the commercial sector; the 767s are hardly going to be wrecks, are they?

I look forward to seeing the new white paper later this week - maybe that'll give us a clearer indication of which way this might go.

[BEagle]

Well I'm not sure whether aircraft age is a red herring any more. The 767 is already described as needing 'substantial upgrade, including engine modifications' whereas the A330 needs 'minimal modification' (open source information).

The bidder who trusts that MoD won't notice capability in excess of the old requirements paper - a capability which is now clearly needed even more than ever before - is a pretty naiive bidder.

Huge penalties for re-opening the bidding process, I'm sure. The bidders' lawyers would probably eat whoever decided to try that for breakfast!

No doubt next week's morale-raising Christmas present for the forces will provide some indications as to whether the UK's strategic force-enabler will a ba hand-me-down - or a proper 21st century aeroplane.

[Art Field]

Having been out of touch with any changes for some time now I can only comment on the operational requirements as laid out in the Invitation to Negotiate issued at the start which required the tendering consortiums to state how they would meet certain current at that time operations. Most of these were deployments and in almost all of them the limiting factors were not the tankers fuel capacity but the limit of four receivers to a tanker and receiver crew duty times, limitations imposed by MOD. The ITN was biased towards a tanker requirement, whatever one may want now, you get what you ask for.

[BEagle]

Quite so, Arters. The ISUN capability requirements were indeed as you state. But that was quite a while ago and the world has moved on to an era where the capability of the A330, which some might argue is excess to the ISUN requirements, is now an eye-catching added-value item in AirTanker's bid.

Don't let us forget; to use BMW terms, MoD always wants a 5-series which has all the performance, bells and whistles of a 7-series - but only wants to pay for a bottom-of-the-range 3-series!

Except that on this occasion some government bean-counter thinks that it'll be cheaper to rent a 5-series for 24 years from a car hirer than it would be to buy it outright in the first place. Oh yes, that'll save money, won't it chaps?

[BEagle]

Not wanting to stick the knife in too much further, but a headline from Defence Systems Daily:

"Roche orders widening of Boeing probe"

(See http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2003/12/09/rtr1175271.html )

But on a more positive note, I'm pleased to report that the Airbus A310 MRTT has now been rolled out at Dresden, as they also report. In fact it wasn't a bad day for Airbus, all in all, as there was also been an order worth up to $3billion for (civil) aircraft from Qatar.

[NURSE]

with regards the whole process the fact that the part of the tanker/transport fleet will be being used as comercial jets to my mind creates a huge security problem and what happens if surge capicity is needed in a hurry?
The 767 does offer interoprebility with the USAF withh regards type but as they use completley different refueling technique to us thats an obvious non starter. If both the competitors aren't probed or capable of being probed what happens when for example we get a very long range deployment like the Falklands could a 767 or A330 make the run there unrefueled with a useful payload?
The American Govt want to keep beoing in buisness hence the defence orders and I would say a certain ammount of pressure to buy being applied to the UK and other countries.
The other line of the CGS speech was about making us more interopreable with the yanks so we may be pushe into the Beoing.
Personally I'd prefer it not to be PFI and the RAF to own/operate outright and be in control of its own destiny.

[BEagle]

Since you ask,

A330 can make the Islas Malvinas direct from Brize with a useful payload, B767 cannot.

..and RAF tankers have been 'interoperable' with US Naval aviators' jets for years. A lightweight boom is under development by EADS for the A330 tanker of the future, but there's no plan to fit it to the RAF's FSTA.

[Phil Terfull]

BEagle, what's the fuel burn of the A330?

[BEagle]

In what role and at what height/weight?

I assume about 5.5 tonne/hr with pods/pylons fitted as an average TLAR figure.

.....and the '330 is a really great jet. Damn pretty as well!

[G Fourbee]

Phil Terfull - twenty percent more than a 767 - and remember, its the RAF who pick up the bill for fuel, not the wicked contractor!

[BEagle]

That's utter bolleaux!

My fuel burn assessment (which came out within <100 kg per hour compared with the figure Boeing gave me much later), when allowance is made (as I have for A330) for pods fitted and hoses trailed in the mid-20s, was about 6% less for B767 than for A330.

Which carries over 50% more fuel. In any case, tanker fuel burn is but a small element of the overall AR fuel requirement.

To put this into context, on a typical North Sea towline task, if a max wt VC10K3 can provide 2:10 on task, an ex-ba B767 transferring fuel at the same rate could provide about an extra 6 minutes on task. But if you flew an A330 all the way from the Airbus factory at Toulouse to the same towline, gave fuel away at the same rate and then flew all the way back to Toulouse (500 nm south of Brize)again, how much extra time do you think you could have on the towline?

The answer? An extra hour! That's how good the extra capability of the future A330 will be.

[G Fourbee]

Your entry would not be my choice of words but you are wrong - do the sums again. A330 will cost the RAF 20% extra in fuel and navigtion costs over the contract term. The requirement is the requirement!

[BEagle]

Even if the A330 did burn the extra fuel you assert (which it most certainly does not), because the 767 has so much less capability, to match the A330 the RAF would need to use many more old Boeings than they would new 330s. Remember, as even Buff Hoon just announced, it's not the number of platforms which matters, it's what you can do with them. And the RAF will be able to do far more with the A330 than ever it would with ba's cast-off 767s.

[Tonkenna]

Isn't there supposed to be some sort of announcement this month about our new tanker, or is that all on hold after Bufhoon's little chat.

I am glad we ae going to be reliant on so much technology in the future cause that has worked so well in the past. I can count the number of technology based puchases that have come in on time and cost on the fingures on my feet!! What a complete load of :mad:

Tonks :hmm:

[West Coast]

Beagle

Time to fill in the standard form 1369, the Brit lament sheet of aviation projects relegated to the bone yard .

We could of had a world beater if it wasn't for the___ and the ___. Our (French) aircraft was clearly superior to the septic____.
It shouldn't have had its run cut short or cancelled. Now sadly the only place we can view it is next to the lone prototype of the cancelled A400 which is across from the Vulcan/Comet, et al in that spam museums in _____. If it wasn't for the spam government interference ___ and ___ would be ruling the airlines. The ____ and ____ would take care of all mil airlift requirements.

Is this still the latest form?

[BEagle]

No - the latest form is:

"Dear Uhhhhhhhrmerican patriot. Hoo-ah, ya'all know we have to defend Uncle Spam against damn pesky foreign airplane (sp) contracts, so please indicate below the level of bribery ya'all need to keep our Brave Workers in business...

I/we* do hereby declare that I/we* support the Lockheed/Boeing* bid as clearly superior Uhhhhmerican technology and accept $ (insert bribe needed here) to prove it. My/our* congressman agrees for another 50%.

(*Delete as despicable)"

[Thunder Child]

The British government is about to award a £13bn contract to replace the RAF's refuelling aircraft to a team led by EADS, the Franco-German defence group, in a blow to a rival consortium led by BAE of the UK and Boeing of the US.


Although the timing of the announcement could slip, industry executives say the team led by the parent of Airbus is scheduled to meet Ministry of Defence procurement officials on Monday to be told it has won.

The decision to favour the AirTanker consortium came as the MoD warned BAE that it could lose future contracts if it failed to improve its project management of big weapons programmes.

An annual review of the armed services' 30 largest weapons programmes, published on Friday, shows the projects have slipped an additional £3.1bn over budget and were delayed an average of nine months, one of the worst performances in recent history.

The National Audit Office study showed that more than 87 per cent of cost overruns and 79 per cent of delays last year were down to four projects, three run by BAE and the other by a missile house partly owned by BAE.

"You don't keep employing a plumber who continually floods your house," a senior MoD official said.

The award of the 27-year contract is a breakthrough for Airbus, which is 80 per cent owned by EADS and 20 per cent owned by BAE. Airbus will supply the aircraft to the AirTanker consortium, with engines and avionics provided by Rolls-Royce of the UK and Thales of France respectively. Cobham of the UK, the other consortium member, will refit the A330 passenger jets.

EADS thinks a win in the UK will give it a leg up when the Pentagon looks for its next tranche of tanker aircraft - large jets used to refuel other military aircraft in mid-air. That contract will mean hundreds of orders for the winner. Boeing has a near-monopoly on tanker aircraft. Losing the RAF contract would have effectively shut Airbus and EADS out of the market.

The loss of the contract - the MoD's largest private finance initiative - follows a disastrous few months for BAE's TTSC consortium, which it leads with Boeing and Serco. Boeing is engulfed in a scandal over a much larger tanker deal for the US Air Force, which led to the resignations of two senior managers, including Phil Condit, its chief executive.

BAE on Thursday acknowledged strained relations with the MoD in the past - particularly its difficulties on the Astute submarine and Nimrod patrol aircraft - but insisted those problems had been dealt with early last year.

"The bottom line is that the [NAO] report is retrospective," BAE said. "Inevitably there are still things BAE needs to do to repair the relationship, but the issues are being sorted out."

Lord Bach, minister for defence procurement, said his call for improved project management covered all companies doing business with the MoD.

Nimrod and Astute are two of the four most costly and delayed programmes, according to the NAO. The other two are the four-nation Eurofighter, run in the UK by BAE, and the Brimstone missile made by MBDA, a consortium part owned by BAE.

[Evanelpus]

Should this come to pass, what would happen to BAe Woodford?

I was under the impression that if a 767 deal was struck the conversion would have been done at Woodford.

[Skylion]

Big loser in this is BA whose probably one and only chance of getting a good price for its 767s has now gone. As only BA and one Chinese airline fly the RR powered version of the 767 they have very limited appeal to the second hand market. BA therefore lose a very substantial windfall ( several hundred million pounds) and are stuck with an aircraft they may never be able to get any real money for.

[RATCHET RING]

i very much doubt if woodford was in with a chance for this work anyway, firstly the hangars would not take a 737 let alone a 767, and secondly woodfords track record with this type of work is hardly encouraging ,you only have to look at their record on nimrod conversion projects and they were built there! the thought of them let loose on a "strange"boeing wide body is scary, i would have thought if bae had secured this work filton would be a far more suitable location

[BEagle]

TTSC plans are that Marshall Aerospace would convert the ex-ba B767s at Cambridge Airport after completing a trial installation on the first ac at Boeing's Wichita facility.

[car_owner]

Boeing-BAe lose Brit Mod's tanker deal.
Will Boeing and Bae speed-up their merger ?

[JimmyTAP]

Ratchet Ring

Woodfords track record with aircraft conversions and aircraft build is excellent as anybody who can see beyond the last 2 years will know. The MRA.4 programme was inherited late and has been dogged with design issues - not build problems.

How long did it take to convert the Vulcans to tankers?
How long did it take to build a 146?
Sadly BAE Systems have taken it upon themselves to fire most the people who knew what they were doing over the last 20 or 30 years and now has a site where morale is rock-bottom but the company still expects top performance.

Woodford was planned to have a major role in the 767 conversion with large hangars built on the south side of the airfield but that is now not going to happen. Filton is an Airbus site rather a BAE site so that would seem unlikely.

Rant complete.

Back to the plot

JT

[BEagle]

Another source here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,175-975165,00.html seems to have more information. It states that an announcement will be made at 'Monday luchtime' (26 Jan).