KC-X RFP Mk II (merged)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EH101
I would have made comment on the "Boeing 101" earlier, but unfortunately I read this story this morning and have spent the remainder of the day rolling around on the floor laughing my ar5e off.
I think Beagle has a great idea, come on Bubba, get some good British AAR systems on your aircraft, then one day, when you grow up you might be as smart as Airbus!!
I think Beagle has a great idea, come on Bubba, get some good British AAR systems on your aircraft, then one day, when you grow up you might be as smart as Airbus!!
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 proposal would transfer all intellectual property, data and production rights for the AW101 from Italy and the UK to the USA
(Also note that US has no objection to technology transfer TO them - see F-22, etc)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
only applicable to Vxx bid
so no other 101 production in the USA apart from for the prez
After being stabbed in the back by LM going to Sikorsky what else were AW going to do?, a big US prime contractor is needed otherwise you neednt even bother strting with a bid in the USA
DM
After being stabbed in the back by LM going to Sikorsky what else were AW going to do?, a big US prime contractor is needed otherwise you neednt even bother strting with a bid in the USA
DM
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think transferring IPR and production of thre US101 to Boeing is necessarily a big deal, don't forget that the US101 and the European Merlin are very different beasts.. I guess it just depends on how AWL are affected by issues such as ITAR on common parts. I still think the hypocrisy from Boeing is hilarious.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
last option for Boeing, if you can't afford to lose the competition, and you can't afford to win it - get it cancelled; and tough luck on the USAF....
Lawmakers urge major cuts in Defense spending
KC-X: Risk Of Deferral Or Even Stopping Contract Award?
Lawmakers urge major cuts in Defense spending
KC-X: Risk Of Deferral Or Even Stopping Contract Award?
Ol' Bubba must really be beginning to squirm more than a twisty-turny thing.
A 7-late-7 derivative? How short some people's memories are....
From Flight International 25-31 May 2004, page 37:
Be really 'smart', USAF, don't choose between Ol' Bubba's risky 767NoGo and a 7-late-7 with 'configuration' issues of Boeing's own admission. Reselect the original KC-X winner, the superb Airbus KC-45A.
A 7-late-7 derivative? How short some people's memories are....
From Flight International 25-31 May 2004, page 37:
For the mid- to long-term, Boeing insists that the 767 remains its choice for the next USAF tanker. The recently launched 7E7, although a 767 replacement, is designed for long-range point-to-point routes and is unsuitable for the tanker mission, says Boeing senior vice-president and general manager air force systems, George Muellner.
"The issue is not composites, but its configuration," he says, adding that futuristic concepts such as the blended wing-body will not be available until "2015 at least". Focus remains on the 767, says Muellner, who adds that the "spiral development" potential of the KC-767A makes it "much more than just a tanker". The USAF "wants a 'smart' tanker, which will work as a communication node in the network, and a relay for ground communications systems."
"The issue is not composites, but its configuration," he says, adding that futuristic concepts such as the blended wing-body will not be available until "2015 at least". Focus remains on the 767, says Muellner, who adds that the "spiral development" potential of the KC-767A makes it "much more than just a tanker". The USAF "wants a 'smart' tanker, which will work as a communication node in the network, and a relay for ground communications systems."
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...-aircraft.html
read fantom's post #4
" Engineering experts, according to people familiar with the matter, continue to assess whether
large, upwardly curved panels attached to the wingtips of some American 767s
have caused or contributed to certain cracks discovered in a section of the
structural backbone of a few planes. Called winglets and installed on many
types of commercial and business jets, the additions are designed to
increase fuel efficiency. (Andy Pasztor, Wall Street Journal - 6/22)"
read fantom's post #4
" Engineering experts, according to people familiar with the matter, continue to assess whether
large, upwardly curved panels attached to the wingtips of some American 767s
have caused or contributed to certain cracks discovered in a section of the
structural backbone of a few planes. Called winglets and installed on many
types of commercial and business jets, the additions are designed to
increase fuel efficiency. (Andy Pasztor, Wall Street Journal - 6/22)"
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Age: 63
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the subsidized A330
If this whole tanker procurement farce is not a classic example of how the Americans do 'subsidy' then I dont know what is!
A Third Option
It seems there may be a last minute bid using Antanovs
US company partners with Antonov in surprise KC-X bid
I wonder if they'll use Russian Pods, although I hear they have a nasty habit of catching on fire...
US company partners with Antonov in surprise KC-X bid
I wonder if they'll use Russian Pods, although I hear they have a nasty habit of catching on fire...
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But in Soviet Russia you don't refuel fighters, fighters refuel You.
Bubba will end up with a tanker that sucks fuel from its intended refuelee.
If it ever gets off the back of Bubba's cigar box.
Bubba will end up with a tanker that sucks fuel from its intended refuelee.
If it ever gets off the back of Bubba's cigar box.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The filing document says US Aerospace will submit three models of Antonov aircraft - An-124-KC, An-122-KC and An-112-KC - before the KC-X bidding deadline on 9 July. The aircraft will be assembled in the US, but built in the Ukraine.
OK... the world's biggest refueler (significantly bigger than even the B747 tanker)... and how long will the boom & hoses need to be to get the "receiver aircraft" out of the wake-turbulence zone of that monster?
An-112-KC
An un-built swept-winged jet-engined drawing-board aircraft loosely based on a 1950s-designed straight-winged turboprop transport. For a competition that specifies entries must be based on an "in-service commercial design".
Russia must have some serious drugs going around!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GK121
Amen to that - but also the Ukraine. More seriously does the WTO decision last week change anything? I've not been following it.
S41
Russia must have some serious drugs going around!
S41
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
EADS offer lower prices in tanker bid
European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. will offer prices below its previous ones in order to win a contract to provide the U.S. Air Force with new aerial refueling tankers, German daily Financial Times Deutschland reports Monday, citing industry sources.
EADS’ Airbus unit will set one price for each model, which will be below the prices it had set for the 2008 and 2009 offers, the report says. This would mean the aerial refueling taker based on the Airbus A330-200 would cost at least 10 percent less than its last $184 million offer, the paper reports.
U.S. rival Boeing Co. will have to calculate a fixed price for a modernized version of is 767 model, which hasn’t flown yet, meaning a bigger risk for Boeing, in contrast to EADS, which can rely on already existing models that have been used in over 1,000 refueling actions, FT Deutschland reports.
EADS wasn’t immediately available for comment Monday.
European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. will offer prices below its previous ones in order to win a contract to provide the U.S. Air Force with new aerial refueling tankers, German daily Financial Times Deutschland reports Monday, citing industry sources.
EADS’ Airbus unit will set one price for each model, which will be below the prices it had set for the 2008 and 2009 offers, the report says. This would mean the aerial refueling taker based on the Airbus A330-200 would cost at least 10 percent less than its last $184 million offer, the paper reports.
U.S. rival Boeing Co. will have to calculate a fixed price for a modernized version of is 767 model, which hasn’t flown yet, meaning a bigger risk for Boeing, in contrast to EADS, which can rely on already existing models that have been used in over 1,000 refueling actions, FT Deutschland reports.
EADS wasn’t immediately available for comment Monday.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 55
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, some simple math: 184M$ times 179 makes 32.94bn$. Take 10% off and you get 29.64bn$. That would be barely more than the ludicrous Antonov deal, if they're really planning a fixed price per aircraft and no non-recurrings, as the article seems to suggest. I couldn't find the alleged source on the FTD website though. Wonder if it's just a rumor?
Boeing keep on about the Airbus WTO thing - which appears to be about the interest rate not being 'commercial' on loan from Govts - loans which are paid back I assume.
How can they do this when this is happening....
Senators want to buy more C17s USAF don't want
....govts buying planes they don't even want or need to prop up industry. Surely this is a far worse, more inappropriate industry subsidy than any loan?
How can they do this when this is happening....
Senators want to buy more C17s USAF don't want
....govts buying planes they don't even want or need to prop up industry. Surely this is a far worse, more inappropriate industry subsidy than any loan?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Somewhere else
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To make the buy from anyone but Boeing in today's political and economic climate would be unthinkable.
My guess is EADS' only hope is to delay the procurement decision until after the November election, or unemployment drops below 8% in the States whichever is later.
Boeing's cyberads for American Tanker = American Jobs are popping up everywhere.
My guess is EADS' only hope is to delay the procurement decision until after the November election, or unemployment drops below 8% in the States whichever is later.
Boeing's cyberads for American Tanker = American Jobs are popping up everywhere.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intriguing to know how a 'messenger' could apparently wander around unescorted for 35 minutes inside W-P AFB....
With so much at stake, the people proposing this paper-plane Antonov (which is even further away from flying than the 767NoGo) should have made darn sure they knew exactly where, by when and to whom their bid should have been delivered. Then arrived at least 2 hours ahead of time....
It's too late now - a deadline is a deadline is a deadline.
Quelle pity..............
With so much at stake, the people proposing this paper-plane Antonov (which is even further away from flying than the 767NoGo) should have made darn sure they knew exactly where, by when and to whom their bid should have been delivered. Then arrived at least 2 hours ahead of time....
It's too late now - a deadline is a deadline is a deadline.
Quelle pity..............
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Boeing are still running scared. As I stated previously, they can't afford to lose this contest - the problem being they can't afford to win it either.....
The "expert contributor" reports on this site are always so incredibly pro-Boeing I can't believe even the Boeing PR staf are responsible, but go figure.
Read between the lines and work out how happy they are....
KC-X Tanker: Contract Winner May Not Win All They Seek
.......How much either side sees the win being instrumental to their military footprint depends on the level at which they are prepared to pay for it. It looks inevitable that Airbus’ ability to outprice Boeing could leave a 767 win being an expensive, loss making effort.........
Both sides claim to want to win to secure jobs and its hard to see how either candidate winning manages to make good on the promise when the price for doing so may be higher than either side are willing to pay for or admit defeat to.
It’s a messy game and one that quite frankly needs to be scrapped altogether given the continuous indecision that surrounds it.
The "expert contributor" reports on this site are always so incredibly pro-Boeing I can't believe even the Boeing PR staf are responsible, but go figure.
Read between the lines and work out how happy they are....
KC-X Tanker: Contract Winner May Not Win All They Seek
.......How much either side sees the win being instrumental to their military footprint depends on the level at which they are prepared to pay for it. It looks inevitable that Airbus’ ability to outprice Boeing could leave a 767 win being an expensive, loss making effort.........
Both sides claim to want to win to secure jobs and its hard to see how either candidate winning manages to make good on the promise when the price for doing so may be higher than either side are willing to pay for or admit defeat to.
It’s a messy game and one that quite frankly needs to be scrapped altogether given the continuous indecision that surrounds it.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Age: 63
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....govts buying planes they don't even want or need to prop up industry. Surely this is a far worse, more inappropriate industry subsidy than any loan?
The USA has always propped-up its industry in this manner. Governors or Senators who hail from the State in which the US company production plant happens to be located have had huge influence over military orders.
Alternatively governments spend millions of dollars researching new technology via NASA or similar-such government-funded organisations, and said technology is handed over to US civil industry for their commercial benefit.
There are many ways of supporting your own industry, directly or indirectly.
This continual bleating by the USA about 'the subsidised Airbus' is total hypocrisy, and part of the game.