Boeing win $35Bn AAR contract
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cost per KC-767 is 19 million more per airframe than the Kc-30 was last round, around 3.4 billion more in upfront purchase costs.
The KC-767 won on a “factored” costs. The life cycle costs savings may or may not ever be realised, the RFP used a mix of sorties which is an average of how tankers were used in the past 20 years, however it is not representative of how they are used today with the high operational tempo of overseas deployments.
What "total life-time program cost differential" means is the purchase price was factored by hypothetical fuel usage, MILCON costs, and capability.
The fuel usage is where Boeing would have won, however that figure is distorted as currently tankers are being used at high operational tempo, and are doing less of the training as a percentage of their total flying. That was not reflected in the distribution of missions in the FURA analysis.
Their train set, they know best. The long term plan of the USAF is to retire all KC-135s and KC-10s, and just have a single fleet of tankers. This will be done in 3 phases, this is the first phase called KC-X, the next two phases are known as KC-Y and KC-Z.
Some facts, the unfactored purchase prices of KC-30 was cheaper per airframe , and also was deemed to be more capable in the air refuelling role than the KC-767. It was found for the USAF to get their planned tanker fleet strength (600 KC-135R equivalents), they would need to purchase 42 additional KC-767s.
The purchase of those additional 42 aircraft (with an upfront purchase price of 8.1 billion), and the additional fuel burn, maintenance costs, and MILCON costs were not factored in the RFP.
The KC-767 won on a “factored” costs. The life cycle costs savings may or may not ever be realised, the RFP used a mix of sorties which is an average of how tankers were used in the past 20 years, however it is not representative of how they are used today with the high operational tempo of overseas deployments.
What "total life-time program cost differential" means is the purchase price was factored by hypothetical fuel usage, MILCON costs, and capability.
The fuel usage is where Boeing would have won, however that figure is distorted as currently tankers are being used at high operational tempo, and are doing less of the training as a percentage of their total flying. That was not reflected in the distribution of missions in the FURA analysis.
Their train set, they know best. The long term plan of the USAF is to retire all KC-135s and KC-10s, and just have a single fleet of tankers. This will be done in 3 phases, this is the first phase called KC-X, the next two phases are known as KC-Y and KC-Z.
Some facts, the unfactored purchase prices of KC-30 was cheaper per airframe , and also was deemed to be more capable in the air refuelling role than the KC-767. It was found for the USAF to get their planned tanker fleet strength (600 KC-135R equivalents), they would need to purchase 42 additional KC-767s.
The purchase of those additional 42 aircraft (with an upfront purchase price of 8.1 billion), and the additional fuel burn, maintenance costs, and MILCON costs were not factored in the RFP.
"There was a bit in the news about that a while back, but nothing materialized. "
It was disqualified for posting the application 5 minutes late. It was significantly cheaper than the other two proposals.
It was disqualified for posting the application 5 minutes late. It was significantly cheaper than the other two proposals.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: HAM
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A330MRTT for USAF
Sorry if my memory does not serve me well, but didn't Airbus build an airframe for the USAF? Must have been around 2007. What became of it? Stored? Converted to an A330 tanker for Australia, UK, UAE, ... ?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The decision was taken in 08-09 after eads won the competition.
Everyone knew the 2 platforms.
New rules excluding the additional capabilities from the competition where pushed by congress.
Now the USAF gets a 20%-30 less capable platform 2-3% cheaper.
You can't blame the USAF. They just needed a tanker, slected what they thought was best, were pulled back & now do what's told them.
Listen to Patty Murray and other politicians for their proud confirmation:
Boeing news | Tanker shocker: Boeing 'clear winner' | Seattle Times Newspaper
Everyone knew the 2 platforms.
New rules excluding the additional capabilities from the competition where pushed by congress.
Now the USAF gets a 20%-30 less capable platform 2-3% cheaper.
You can't blame the USAF. They just needed a tanker, slected what they thought was best, were pulled back & now do what's told them.
Listen to Patty Murray and other politicians for their proud confirmation:
Boeing news | Tanker shocker: Boeing 'clear winner' | Seattle Times Newspaper
EADS North America statement concerning U.S. Air Force Tanker selection
See: EADS North America statement concerning U.S. Air Force Tanker selection - News
EADS North America officials today expressed disappointment and concern over the announcement by the U.S. Air Force that it had selected a high-risk, concept aircraft over the proven, more capable KC-45 for the nation's next aerial refueling tanker.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: HAM
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
found it...
The A330 destined for the USAF was MSN996. It is currently converted for the Royal Saudi Airforce.
Edit: MSN 925 also was destined for US, but is still stored
Edit: MSN 925 also was destined for US, but is still stored
Last edited by CE-HAM; 25th Feb 2011 at 14:32. Reason: found a second one
"One must also question whether Boeing has sufficient engineering resources to bring the KC-767, 787-9, 787-10, updated 777, AND 737 replacement all on line in time in the next decade. It couldn't do the 787-8, 787-3 and 747-8 concurrently (only one of which was an all-new model, the other two being derivatives) - the 783 was canned, the 788 is 3.5 years late, and the 748 is 18 months late."
Glass houses - stones?
Glass houses - stones?
The decision has NOTHING to do with the capabilities of the aircraft in question and everything to do with politics. Anyone who has been in and around Washington DC while this competition was running would understand that entirely.
Sadly I doubt the better aircraft won the day, but that is immaterial - the current tanker fleet is very long in the tooth, so I'm sure the Air Force will just be glad some new aircraft are headed their way.
The die was cast as soon as the re-compete was announced.
- GY
Sadly I doubt the better aircraft won the day, but that is immaterial - the current tanker fleet is very long in the tooth, so I'm sure the Air Force will just be glad some new aircraft are headed their way.
The die was cast as soon as the re-compete was announced.
- GY
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Wales
Age: 63
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a member of EADS Cassidian, this decision is truly a major blow to us, but it was not unexpected.
I and my colleagues in work believe that the USA has shot themselves in the foot by choosing Boeing. The chance of several thousand jobs being created has gone (Boeing will merely absorb the work without the creation of many jobs). The potential technology share, not just in aircraft, but in the world of comms, cyberspace etc, etc, could be jeopardised. But the point is that it shows to the rest of the world the continual hypocrisy that the USA can display. Open market and fair trading……only when it suits them. Democracy and an elected Government…….only when it suits them.
The USA wants the world to have a fair and level playing field, but they seem to forget (quite often) that the rest of the world expects them to display the same values.
BP should have pulled the plug on them; it’s still a big world out there without them. Even more so these days!
I and my colleagues in work believe that the USA has shot themselves in the foot by choosing Boeing. The chance of several thousand jobs being created has gone (Boeing will merely absorb the work without the creation of many jobs). The potential technology share, not just in aircraft, but in the world of comms, cyberspace etc, etc, could be jeopardised. But the point is that it shows to the rest of the world the continual hypocrisy that the USA can display. Open market and fair trading……only when it suits them. Democracy and an elected Government…….only when it suits them.
The USA wants the world to have a fair and level playing field, but they seem to forget (quite often) that the rest of the world expects them to display the same values.
BP should have pulled the plug on them; it’s still a big world out there without them. Even more so these days!
As a member of EADS Cassidian... ...shows to the rest of the world the continual hypocrisy that the USA...
On a different note, anyone who thinks that a decision about $35B public expenditure can be free from politics must be nuts. C'est la vie.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: East of LGB
Age: 68
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Open market and fair trading……only when it suits them.
The UH-72 Lakota is a twin-engine helicopter with a single, four-bladed main rotor. The UH-72 is a militarized version of the Eurocopter EC145 and is built by American Eurocopter division of EADS North America. Initially marketed as the UH-145, the helicopter was selected as the winner of the United States Army's Light Utility Helicopter (LUH) program on 30 June 2006. In October 2006, American Eurocopter was awarded a production contract for 345 aircraft to replace aging UH-1H and OH-58A/C helicopters in the Army and Army National Guard fleets.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Wales
Age: 63
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
balsa model
My comments are my opinions and not the opinions of my employer. Also I never said anything about anybody hating anyone.
Having spent nearly thirty years in the Royal Air Force and a whole load of my time in the states I have the utmost respect for the beauty of the land and many of the people who live there. Its just the politics of the country that sucks.
Finally without wishing to offend you, they (the politics) don’t exactly think a lot about your country. No offence intended!
11Fan
Thanks, but it could have been more
Reading the above post, I'm thinking, good on you USA for not picking a supplier that hates you.
Having spent nearly thirty years in the Royal Air Force and a whole load of my time in the states I have the utmost respect for the beauty of the land and many of the people who live there. Its just the politics of the country that sucks.
Finally without wishing to offend you, they (the politics) don’t exactly think a lot about your country. No offence intended!
11Fan
Thanks, but it could have been more
