Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Northrup Grumman/EADS win USAF tanker bid

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Northrup Grumman/EADS win USAF tanker bid

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 29th Feb 2008, 21:32
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,187
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
A GREAT day for the USAF (and for EADS).

I can scarcely believe it.

A triumph for the better tanker, rather than the more politically acceptable solution.

The USAF get a tanker that can offload more fuel, more efficiently, from a towline further from base, and whose balanced field length requirements mean that it can operate at max weight from shorter runways than the 767 could.

If our American chums can see beyond the Airbus being 'French' I think that the air power intelligentsia in the states will soon realise that they've bought themselves a da.m.ned good airplane. (And if it helps it will be badged as a Northrop Grumman bird and will be assembled in Mobile).

The A310 is already flying very successfully in the tanker role, and the Airbus boom is looking very good on the A310 testbed, while the RAAF's A330 tankers will soon be in service. The poor old KC-767 has had a rather less successful start, with numerous teething troubles and severe delays.

That decision must sound the death knell for the KC-767 tanker, however, and while its great news for the USAF, it can only be a devastating blow for the Boeing workforce, who have my sympathies, for what that's worth.

But one hopes that the 767 does get orders as an RC-135 replacement, at least - as well as for the USAF's JSTARS and AWACS replacement requirements.
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2008, 21:39
  #22 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 81
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
That decision must sound the death knell for the KC-767 tanker
Nah, as the RAF already operates the 707 type they will probably snap up the offer of cutprice 767s
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2008, 21:40
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"(And if it helps it will be badged as a Northrop Grumman bird and will be assembled in Mobile)"

In a mobile building ????

Is that to confuse terrorists ?
Thelma Viaduct is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2008, 21:45
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,187
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
not mobile - Mobile, Alabama......
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2008, 21:49
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,837
Received 279 Likes on 113 Posts
My source was the live broadcast on Bloomberg TV.

Amusingly, some US commentator has just said "Airbus is also involved in the Northrop-Grumman offer".....

And a couple of days ago, the Luftwaffe received its first upgraded A310MRTT from EFW at Dresden, flying it back to Köln-Bonn. The first CC-150T Polaris is now being modified to the new standard, with both nations' second aircraft following soon......

Now, about FSTA.......
BEagle is online now  
Old 29th Feb 2008, 21:50
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
wonder what engines are being bid PW/GE/RR ????
GE is part of the bid team.
FoxtrotAlpha18 is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2008, 21:51
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Warrington, UK
Posts: 3,840
Received 77 Likes on 32 Posts
BBC article here;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7272129.stm
MightyGem is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2008, 21:52
  #28 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 81
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Pious, it's like shooting fish in a barrel isn't it?
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2008, 21:52
  #29 (permalink)  

Rebel PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The "day" is not over yet, it's almost certainly going to be tied up in appeals by Boeing/State of Washington/Democrats for about a year (both Boeing and PW being located in mainly Dem states, Northrop's bid being mostly Rep states) but that such a decision would be made at all...

I wonder in the back of my mind if Airbus expected to win at all and now are going "sheee-it. Now what?"
MarkD is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2008, 21:52
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Burgess Hill
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Its a KC -140

Interview on Bloomsberg referred to a KC-140. Didn't catch the engine but as Pratt was bidding into Boeing it must be either GE or RR
Lower Hangar is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2008, 21:56
  #31 (permalink)  

Rebel PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Boeing's bid was PW powered, Airbus' by GE.
http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/p....html?d=126373
MarkD is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2008, 21:58
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,837
Received 279 Likes on 113 Posts
Bloomberg have referred to the KC-40, KC-140 and KC-145.....

Bless 'em.

It's the KC-45A, as far as I'm aware.. With GE engines.

Now, what am I bid for my framed picture (from Boeing some years ago) of a KC-767 refuelling a pair of F-32s....all in RAF markings! Could be a collector's item, one day....

Last edited by BEagle; 29th Feb 2008 at 22:08.
BEagle is online now  
Old 29th Feb 2008, 22:08
  #33 (permalink)  

Rebel PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ankertops.html

Seattle Times can't tell one twin Airbus from t'other:
Boeing has lost a Pentagon contract for 179 air tankers to an Airbus-Northrop Grumman venture.

The Air Force secretary, Michael Wynne, says the newly named KC-45A will replace aging KC-135 tankers and carry cargo, passengers and patients as well as fuel.

The order is worth $40 billion and could lead to more orders as the Air Force replaces its aging fleet of 600 tankers.

Boeing planned to use the 767 airframe for the tanker. Without the Air Force order Boeing may have to shut down the line at the Everett factory. The planes would have been turned into tankers in Wichita.

Northrop-Airbus is using an Airbus A300 plane, to be modified in Alabama.

Boeing had previously landed the Air Force tanker order in 2004 but lost it in an ethics scandal.
Boeing might have to shut down the 767 line... that they only kept just far enough open to land KC-767 - expect the push for more 787-3 orders to start tomorrow.
MarkD is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2008, 22:34
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lower hangar
Didn't catch the engine but as Pratt was bidding into Boeing it must be either GE or RR
GE CF6-80E1A4B
turboshaft is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2008, 22:35
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: warwickshire
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wonder how far down the list that leaves the RAF tankers!?
giblets is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2008, 22:55
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Outstanding! But I'll be very interested to see if Boeing launch an appeal.

And I'm a fan of the CF6 engines too - great pieces of kit, especially if there isn't one in line with the UAARSI....

So Beags, anyone taken up that job in Spain yet?
D-IFF_ident is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2008, 23:07
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: South Carolina
Age: 76
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Source

AviationWeek.com
Lee Norberg is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2008, 23:18
  #38 (permalink)  

Pilot Officer PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Does this mean that if we ever get our backsides into gear and make a decision we will be at the back of a very long que?

Better get a new role of bodge tape out for the old girls on 101 and 216!

Tonks
Tonkenna is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2008, 23:21
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think the construction of the frames in Mobile should mean that Airtanker still get their frames of the line in the EU, but then again I'm not sure the FSTA frames even have a production line number assigned yet do they? And what you doing up at this time of night Tonks?
D-IFF_ident is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2008, 23:28
  #40 (permalink)  
brickhistory
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I'm hoping the USAF actually showed some shrewdness:

McCain has had a stiffie for the USAF ever since the crooked leased tanker deal and has just pilliored every USAF civil and uniformed leader who has appeared before him. Therefore, if he wins the Presidency, the USAF still gets its desparately needed new tankers.

However, should Clinton or Obama win, I'm still betting that the contract is re-let and/or split to keep Boeing in the game.

However, I'm retired as of today! Not my problem anymore.

Good luck to those still in!
 


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.