FSTA (again!)

[Sangiovese]

Congress has passed a fiscal defence budget for 2002. In it, $20 billion is allocated over 10 years to lease 100 Boeing 767 tankers to replace the KC135E.

The RAF programme asks for £13 billion ($19 billion) over 25 years for 10 - 30 aircraft. Sounds like a bargain to me! Not! (I recognise that the funding also covers airfield services/engineering too)

Would it not be sensible to leap on the back of the USAF programme for new (not secondhand) 767 tankers to aid interoperability? (Especially since one of the admitted failings of the US in the current campaign is wing hose tankers)

Also since BAE Systems have now set up a financing arm to help PFI style leases (todays FT), and they are in bed with Boeing for FSTA is there something we can assume from this (believe FSTA lead team is selected soon)?

Bet it won't take Beagle long to reply........

[MarkD]

The Boeing program is being described as one of the biggest "porkbarrel" bills in history, especially as they have to be converted from commercial, leased and converted back at USAF expense. It was not in the top 50 project requirements for USAF, and better yet, it would be cheaper to buy the damn things!

McCain lost the battle against it, even though Boeing is pulling out of Seattle obviously their "public representatives" are still being done right by them.

[BEagle]

No comment, sorry!

[Tobbes_on_Tour]

BEagle, surely you jest.

Is the FSTA confirmed as a PPP? I understood that it isn't a done deal yet. Have the glorious leadership actually worked out where the risk transfer is going? Who is working out the public sector comparitor?

(And yes, McCain is absolutely right -- the Boeing deal is the most outrageous boondoggle this side of Teapot Dome. Perhaps there's a bridge in Brooklyn that Congress would like to buy.....)

ToT

[ORAC]

Almost as bad as forking out nearly $900 on two cruise ships for the US navy:

<a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-000001991jan09.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dbusiness" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/business/la-000001991jan09.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dbusiness</a>

[Overstretch]

Unbelieveable!! Somebody has nobbled BEagle! Conspiracy theories run riot!! 30 FSTA would be nice but I can't see that happening.

Anybody care to expound why the USAF KC767 deal is such a bad one, as intimated above. I understood from Janes that the deal was $20 million per ac per year for 10 years and then buy them for $1 each. That is $200 million per ac including logistics support. I understood that congress had just released $125 million to buy a single airframe with another $50 million to convert it to tanker. Don't know where the cost of converting them back to civil spec comes from 'cos that isn't likely to happen unless the KC-X programme is still alive and well. Any further thoughts?

[BEagle]

I love Big Brother
I love Big Brother
I love Big Brother

Thoughtcrime is doubleplus ungood!

[ 12 January 2002: Message edited by: BEagle ]</p>

[stianwalker]

ORAC...I think the US Navy are positively onto a bargain there...just $900 for two cruise ships, that's what you call intelligent defence spending! :)

[ORAC]

Right, buy them and then try and work out an operational use for them! (Then spend another billion modifying them in an operational role and to be safe and capable going into a combat zone).

(Mind you their staterooms would be a lot more comfortable and less crowded than those on the Mount Whitney!)

[Sangiovese]

Anybody know what sort of procurement competition the Italians considered before buying 4 (+2 options) 767K's with servcing by Alenia/Alitalia? Did they look at the A310 MRTT/A330 option or was the Boeing the only competitor? Seems strange the Japanese SDF and Saudi AF are only looking (as I understand it) at the Boeing.

Or do I sense we may be sold an Airbus pup here? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

And I know this has all been discussed on here before, but I find it strange everybody is leaning in the Boeing direction (especially since their JSF loss/airline downturn)

[G.Khan]

The US plan to use them as 'Love Boats' and are going to park them just off-shore from 'tent city' at Seeb!, (or so I heard!). <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[BEagle]

According to Flight, the Italians rejected the A330 because it was unproven technology (for a military aircraft), too big for the aerodromes the Italians needed it to operate from and was over capacity for their needs.......

[ 12 January 2002: Message edited by: BEagle ]</p>