RAF tanker aircraft - Boeing ups bid
Thread Starter
RAF tanker aircraft - Boeing ups bid
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?
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?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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?
"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?
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"
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"
Last edited by BEagle; 27th Nov 2003 at 17:53.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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!
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!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
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$$ down the sink on Cold War relics like Bureaufighter and Nimrod MRA F*ck knows when.......
Not to mention Chinook HC3.........
'Sufficient military transports'? Bums on seats, laddie, bums on seats. Not just airframe numbers, rather the product of (seats available at max fuel weight) x (numbers of aeroplanes).
But the competition isn't just capability driven. Had that been the case, the A330 would already have been selected. It'll be compromised by 'affordability' - how much we're prepared to spend on worthwhile aeroplanes which are actually needed compared to the amount we continue to pi$$ down the sink on Cold War relics like Bureaufighter and Nimrod MRA F*ck knows when.......
Not to mention Chinook HC3.........
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
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?
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?
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...
"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...