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

Boeing win $35Bn AAR contract

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.

Boeing win $35Bn AAR contract

Old 1st Mar 2011, 08:12
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Durham
Posts: 483
knowitall

The U.S. Senate got their fingers burned last year when the BP oil rig blew up in the G of Mexico

BP had paid about $17bn, yup BILLION, to their political funds. They thought they were invincable...bit like PM Cameron. Buzz I call him, as in Lightyear.

Can you blame them for being cautious with EUR companies after that mess?

Regards
DERG is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2011, 11:55
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
I still find it amusing that while Boeing and Patty Murray were singing about "US national champions" Boeing were secretly talking to Cobham saying "Hey guys, our American AAR system is a pile of crap and doesn't work, can you Brits bail us out?" (Or words to that effect).

Flyt3est is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2011, 13:59
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Uk
Posts: 182
"Can you blame them for being cautious with EUR companies after that mess?"

BP's as American as it is European these days, then there's transocean, haliburton, exxon.....
knowitall is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2011, 17:34
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 246
Analysis: Why Boeing won Air Force tanker deal

http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/news/2011/03/01
Bevo is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2011, 18:05
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
DERG wrote

"BP had paid about $17bn, yup BILLION, to their political funds."

Source please? It really is rubbish

Obama biggest recipient of BP cash - Erika Lovley - POLITICO.com

"BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the companyís political action committees ó $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals."

You've added too many zeros friend
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2011, 14:05
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Fuel prices are high and expected to go higher in the future. The A330 simply uses a lot more fuel than the 767.

Letís look at the numbers. According to the authoritative Airline Monitor (November 2010), the average 767-300ER in US airline service burns about 1,550 gallons per block hour (Boeingís tanker uses a smaller airframe, but more equipment, so we donít know itís exact burn rate). The average A330 in US airline service (-200s and -300s; the FAA doesnít break them out, but the KC-30 too would carry more equipment) burns about 1,900 gallons per block hour. If fuel is $50/bbl, that fuel burn difference isnít the end of the world. If you start with a base year assumption of $100/bbl, and then add the usual US Government fuel cost inflation factor for a 30 year life span, multiply it times X hundreds of flight hours per year times 179 aircraft, you get a fuel-related operating cost difference wide enough to drive a truck through. The EADS up-front price discount would have been dwarfed by this huge fuel cost divergence.
RichardAboulafia.com
OFBSLF is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2011, 14:32
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,814
Except that you would need rather more KC-46As to the same work as a smaller number of KC-30s if you were intelligent enough to have realised that in the first place, instead of looking at aircraft numbers!

The fuel burn issue is, frankly, bolleaux. It's like saying the RB211 in the TriStar had a higher fuel burn than in the 747, so was more expensive to operate......except that the 747 had one more engine! A mistake which one airline's beancounters allegedly made...
BEagle is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2011, 16:09
  #68 (permalink)  
K_9
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USofA
Posts: 65
Do you people not remember EADS winning last time? I think that alone is enough evidence that this was anyone's game.
Originally Posted by Spooky 2 View Post
Actually the rumors around the company for the last couple of months were that Boeing was not going to win this contract.
This. I personally couldn't understand why the Pentagon would ever take the A330 platform over the 767, seeing as the 767 nearly perfectly fits their desired mission profile and the A330 is way too much airplane, but the rumor mill was not very optimistic for B.

Originally Posted by Brain Potter View Post
What, just like Boeing and it's political cronies did when they lost the original competition. Also, especially with our economy the way it is, why would we spend our money overseas for an oversized and overpriced solution instead of right at home for an almost-ideal solution?

Best of three?
If my history is correct, Boeing won the first competition (rescinded for inappropriate conduct), EADS won the second (rescinded for inconsistent scoring), and now Boeing won this competition.

Originally Posted by BEagle View Post
Except that you would need rather more KC-46As to the same work as a smaller number of KC-30s if you were intelligent enough to have realised that in the first place, instead of looking at aircraft numbers!

The fuel burn issue is, frankly, bolleaux. It's like saying the RB211 in the TriStar had a higher fuel burn than in the 747, so was more expensive to operate......except that the 747 had one more engine! A mistake which one airline's beancounters allegedly made...
Yes, and I could buy a 15-passenger van to take my kids to soccer practice, but my Mazda 3 does the same job with a lot less fuel and a lot less car. Why don't the airlines use A380s or 747s to fly between Wichita and Pensacola? Because there's no use for that capacity.
K_9 is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2011, 18:01
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Except that you would need rather more KC-46As to the same work as a smaller number of KC-30s if you were intelligent enough to have realised that in the first place, instead of looking at aircraft numbers!
Beagle: You can make your arguments without insulting people.

The fuel burn issue is, frankly, bolleaux. It's like saying the RB211 in the TriStar had a higher fuel burn than in the 747, so was more expensive to operate......except that the 747 had one more engine! A mistake which one airline's beancounters allegedly made...
No, actually, it is not bolleaux. If the KC-30 is large enough to support a mission, sending a KC-46A on that mission would use more fuel.

Neither of us know the DOD assumptions about the missions profiles. But my guess is that they have a pretty good understanding of the typical USAF refueling mission profile.
OFBSLF is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2011, 20:26
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 898
Threads Merged? Not quite.

When I posted this yesterday on KC-X (merged) I mistakenly thought it had merged this string, too. I'll see if I can't delete it from the other thread, so as not to be (crossposting.)

Boeing Boondoggle: Pork Can Fly
Robert Scheer
Editor of Truthdig.com, Author, 'The Great American Stickup'
Posted: March 2, 2011 02:33 AM

Quote:
"The gift that keeps on giving" should have been the headline on the Pentagon's decision to award the Boeing Co. a $35 billion defense contract. Defense of the nation, of course, had nothing to do with it, since the end of the Cold War also ended the need for midair refueling of the nuclear-armed bombers intended to retaliate after a Soviet first strike, a scenario brought to the public eye in the 1964 movie Dr. Strangelove.

Indeed, at a time when drones seem to be bypassing the need for manned military bombers and fighters of any kind, and when schoolteachers and firefighters are being terminated across the country, the awarding of this long-delayed and always questionable military-industrial-complex scam is simply perverse...
The rest at: Robert Scheer: Boeing Boondoggle: Pork Can Fly
--------

When I wrote upstream from here that Second Best Won, I should have written: Second Worst Won.

GB
Graybeard is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2011, 20:56
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,814
OFBSLF, I'm sorry - I didn't mean you personally! I meant 'if you were an assessor' in a generic manner. My apologies for the unintended denigration.

It will indeed to be interesting to see how the 767NoGo fares. Some years ago, we set a simple competition for tanker comparison. Take off from a 10000ft balanced field at sea level/ISA/still-air and what is your max fuel on board? Whereas the A310 and A330 could comfortably take-off with max fuel, the 767 was limited to something like 76 of its 91 tonnes. The first request from the US representative was for a 12000ft balanced field....which was refused.

So I will be most interested to see how the KC-46 performs under hot/high conditions; the Italians have already had to extend Pratica de Mare for their more basic 767-200 derivative but that still means that the MTOW is field-limited during the Mediterranean summer.

Back when the RAF's FSTA competition was between the A330 and B767, I asked the Boeing representative about the poor brochure runway performance figures for the 767-200ER at high weight. "That's where Airbus has the edge", he admitted..... Later some fighter General quoted 767 runway figures, but, having not a clue about scheduled performance, he quoted take-off ground run figures rather than balanced field figures...

Perhaps the KC-46 will have much bigger engines and brakes than the 767-200ER, but with that wing loading they'd need to be much bigger/thirstier engines.

Maybe it's also going to be fitted with anti-gravity systems? Or will it simply rely on Ol' Bubba Boeing's hot air and spin to get it airborne at max fuel?
BEagle is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2011, 04:46
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 430
at least its boom will probably be able to safely and reliably pass fuel before the Airbus one will
ftrplt is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2011, 05:50
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Durham
Posts: 483
Re post #56

Heathrow Harry

Yes..my bad!

"On top of that, the oil giant has spent millions each year on lobbying ó including $15.9 million last year alone ó as it has tried to influence energy policy."
DERG is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2011, 06:36
  #74 (permalink)  
K_9
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USofA
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by BEagle View Post
OFBSLF, I'm sorry - I didn't mean you personally! I meant 'if you were an assessor' in a generic manner. My apologies for the unintended denigration.

It will indeed to be interesting to see how the 767NoGo fares. Some years ago, we set a simple competition for tanker comparison. Take off from a 10000ft balanced field at sea level/ISA/still-air and what is your max fuel on board? Whereas the A310 and A330 could comfortably take-off with max fuel, the 767 was limited to something like 76 of its 91 tonnes. The first request from the US representative was for a 12000ft balanced field....which was refused.

So I will be most interested to see how the KC-46 performs under hot/high conditions; the Italians have already had to extend Pratica de Mare for their more basic 767-200 derivative but that still means that the MTOW is field-limited during the Mediterranean summer.

Back when the RAF's FSTA competition was between the A330 and B767, I asked the Boeing representative about the poor brochure runway performance figures for the 767-200ER at high weight. "That's where Airbus has the edge", he admitted..... Later some fighter General quoted 767 runway figures, but, having not a clue about scheduled performance, he quoted take-off ground run figures rather than balanced field figures...

Perhaps the KC-46 will have much bigger engines and brakes than the 767-200ER, but with that wing loading they'd need to be much bigger/thirstier engines.

Maybe it's also going to be fitted with anti-gravity systems? Or will it simply rely on Ol' Bubba Boeing's hot air and spin to get it airborne at max fuel?
US DOD has had its tanker profile laid out for a very long time (since before EADS won the second competition). 767 fits the bill, A330 does not. If it bothers you that much, then you can buy European defense for your country.
K_9 is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2011, 07:44
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 475
K_9

Location: Seattle

'nuff said
Brain Potter is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2011, 08:12
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,814
Indeed, Brain Potter!

I wonder whether Ol' Bubba Boeing will have more success with this digitally-remastered old airliner than he's had with the 'plastic fantastic' 7-late-7? Or the KC-767I which was something like 6 years late and still hasn't passed its operational acceptance with the Italian Air Force.

Still, at least the ignorant rednecks are happy - they won't have to worry about their 'warfighters' (I hate that stupid American term) flying a 'goddam French airplane'.....
BEagle is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2011, 10:18
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 1,529
So Boeing won the contest yet they cannot, or will not, give any clear details on whether it is a hybrid of 767 versions or based on one version, no details on the range, payload, and fuel offoad of the winning bid.

Perhaps they are still re-writing their bid to fit what is required?
surely not is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2011, 15:23
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,814
EADS mulling over KC-X protest

From Flight:

EADS mulling over KC-X protest

BEagle is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2011, 16:10
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 3
EADS Won't Appeal USAF Tanker Choice: Report

From Defense News

EADS Won't Appeal USAF Tanker Choice: Report


EADS Won't Appeal USAF Tanker Choice: Report - Defense News

Will they or wont they? They certainly should
B_Oiledup is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2011, 17:35
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
ftrplt

at least its boom will probably be able to safely and reliably pass fuel before the Airbus one will
.. Maybe. when they have actually finished designing it..

Given your moniker and location I thought you would have been privy to what went on with the boom incident? More so I thought you would have had a good understanding of the regularity of boom mishaps throughout tanker fleets globally??
Flyt3est is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.