Possibility of Airbus tankers for USAF
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,820 Likes
on
1,202 Posts
Possibility of Airbus tankers for USAF
Looks like with the doubling of the initial cost and the Boeing 767 tanker woes... Airbus might be back in the game.
https://www.defenseone.com/business/...airbus/174787/
https://www.defenseone.com/business/...airbus/174787/
The U.S. Air Force has begun its search for as many as 160 new refueling tankers. The contest, a long-planned follow-on to the competition that produced the troubled Boeing KC-46, may be Airbus’ best chance yet to win a foothold in the American strategic tanker market.
The contest for what the military is calling a “bridge tanker” kicked off the same week President Biden and the European Union called a five-year truce in a 17-year-old trade battle over state subsidies allegedly given to the U.S. and European planemakers—and as some U.S. lawmakers say it’s time to give Airbus a role in the U.S. strategic refueling mission.
The Air Force said in a contracting notice posted Wednesday that it wants to buy between 140 and 160 new tankers—at a rate of 12 to 15 aircraft per year—that are based on a commercial aircraft design.
“The Commercial Derivative Aircraft must be operational by 2029,” the notice states. “The Air Force is still finalizing the requirements for this acquisition.”
Boeing and Airbus are the only makers of new, jet-powered, strategic refueling planes. Boeing’s KC-46 is based on the 767 airliner, while Airbus’ Multi-Role Tanker Transport, or MRTT, is based on the A330. Lockheed Martin and Embraer make smaller, tactical refueling aircraft.
Airbus has partnered with U.S. defense giant Lockheed Martin, which said it intends to respond to the Air Force’s request.
“We are responding to the U.S. Air Force’s Sources Sought Notification for the Bridge Tanker Program, offering a mission-ready solution to meet the Air Force’s future tanker requirements,” Rob Fuller, a Lockheed Martin spokesman, said in a statement.
The contest for what the military is calling a “bridge tanker” kicked off the same week President Biden and the European Union called a five-year truce in a 17-year-old trade battle over state subsidies allegedly given to the U.S. and European planemakers—and as some U.S. lawmakers say it’s time to give Airbus a role in the U.S. strategic refueling mission.
The Air Force said in a contracting notice posted Wednesday that it wants to buy between 140 and 160 new tankers—at a rate of 12 to 15 aircraft per year—that are based on a commercial aircraft design.
“The Commercial Derivative Aircraft must be operational by 2029,” the notice states. “The Air Force is still finalizing the requirements for this acquisition.”
Boeing and Airbus are the only makers of new, jet-powered, strategic refueling planes. Boeing’s KC-46 is based on the 767 airliner, while Airbus’ Multi-Role Tanker Transport, or MRTT, is based on the A330. Lockheed Martin and Embraer make smaller, tactical refueling aircraft.
Airbus has partnered with U.S. defense giant Lockheed Martin, which said it intends to respond to the Air Force’s request.
“We are responding to the U.S. Air Force’s Sources Sought Notification for the Bridge Tanker Program, offering a mission-ready solution to meet the Air Force’s future tanker requirements,” Rob Fuller, a Lockheed Martin spokesman, said in a statement.
It was never a given that the KC-46 would fill the KC-Y requirement as well as the initial KC-X requirement.
The KC-46 has lots of additional stuff for "'special requirements" that aren't needed by the entire tanker fleet.
US TRANSCOM has been looking at multiple options for about a year now - including Contractor Owned Contractor Operated.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11537
The problem for Airbus is going to be the conversion rate they can achieve - which is currently 5 aircraft per year.
.
The KC-46 has lots of additional stuff for "'special requirements" that aren't needed by the entire tanker fleet.
US TRANSCOM has been looking at multiple options for about a year now - including Contractor Owned Contractor Operated.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11537
The problem for Airbus is going to be the conversion rate they can achieve - which is currently 5 aircraft per year.
.
If there is an order for up to 160, they don't need to convert the aircraft, they can build them from scratch. That would be a cheaper option too.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,820 Likes
on
1,202 Posts
It was never a given that the KC-46 would fill the KC-Y requirement as well as the initial KC-X requirement.
The KC-46 has lots of additional stuff for "'special requirements" that aren't needed by the entire tanker fleet.
US TRANSCOM has been looking at multiple options for about a year now - including Contractor Owned Contractor Operated.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11537
The problem for Airbus is going to be the conversion rate they can achieve - which is currently 5 aircraft per year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1GBoeHPJvA
.
The KC-46 has lots of additional stuff for "'special requirements" that aren't needed by the entire tanker fleet.
US TRANSCOM has been looking at multiple options for about a year now - including Contractor Owned Contractor Operated.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11537
The problem for Airbus is going to be the conversion rate they can achieve - which is currently 5 aircraft per year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1GBoeHPJvA
.
They would have been in a good place had Boeing not applied pressure to get the bidding spec changed..
Now I suspect any proposition will favour another "single bidder", and it won't be Airbus. It just seems like another attempt to get the USAF further locked into Boeings grip.
I doubt Airbus will want their fingers burnt again, however many frames they can deliver.
IG
Now I suspect any proposition will favour another "single bidder", and it won't be Airbus. It just seems like another attempt to get the USAF further locked into Boeings grip.
I doubt Airbus will want their fingers burnt again, however many frames they can deliver.
IG
There is a lot of expensive flying stuff Europe is buying, or intending to buy soon, from the US including from Boeing. This is why there will be enough orders left for everybody even with an MRTT order from the US.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me.
The only reason for the inclusion of Airbus for a tender on a commercially based tanker would be, as the only competitor in the market, would be to try and drive the price of the Boeing tender down.
Bioeing know it, Airbus knows and Congress knows it.
If the invitation to tender offers to pick up all the costs of the losing bidder it might be worthwhile*, otherwise why waste time and money?
* I say might - it would draw a lot if engineers away from areas where the profit margin might be far greater.
The only reason for the inclusion of Airbus for a tender on a commercially based tanker would be, as the only competitor in the market, would be to try and drive the price of the Boeing tender down.
Bioeing know it, Airbus knows and Congress knows it.
If the invitation to tender offers to pick up all the costs of the losing bidder it might be worthwhile*, otherwise why waste time and money?
* I say might - it would draw a lot if engineers away from areas where the profit margin might be far greater.
