Very, very surprised at this one...Boeing surely offered a financially competitive deal after the 'ethics' scandal of a few years ago, and there must be deep misgivings in many US hearts at the thought of so much hardware for the USAF originating in France...what message does this send out to the industrial heartland of the US? With an order this big, the US government has just dealt a serious blow to a US company against a non-US rival. While the A330 based aircraft might be more capable, US jobs, not to mention national pride have just taken a big hit. I'm not one for protectionism generally, but I would have fully understood any government keeping this type of contract internal to the nation. Would France have ordered 767 tankers?

NWSRG, how out of touch you are.

I wouldn't be too sure about that.

Boeing in the last decade or so has been increasingly outsourcing. On the other hand, Airbus/EADS, has made it known that they want to establish a manufacturing site in the US (to hedge against the USD and largest market). It's essentially a win for the newly industrialising southern states at the expense of the legacy manufacturing heartlands - Toyota, Nissan, BMW, MB, Honda have all established manufacturing plants in the south at the expense of Michigan.

PS: I would've went with the 767, much safer. The Pentagon has other big projects to worry about.

A little politics:

From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/bu...tanker.html?hp

Pontius, not much :ok:

It made me smile for a few seconds anyway. :}

Not half as much as the post above though.

You'd think they'd piggyback this and take full advantage of the spam purchase, I suppose they'll do the opposite and end up paying twice as much for half the capability, smart procurement indeed.

Interesting
 

I'm a Brit living in Washington state so this is kind of interesting to me. I can see huge political pressure being brought to give the deal to Boeing, but on the other hand there's still a lot of money going into US hands here - GE gets 5B for the engines for a start.

I'm sure Alabama will fight hard to keep the deal too because it means a lot of jobs for them.

If the congress forces the USAF to by Boeing then it doesn't bode well for US defense suppliers trying to sell into EU markets - congress didn't pitch a fit when the UK bought Trident did they ?

What makes a KC-45 different from a KC-30 / MRTT? Just nomenclature?

“Once we have reviewed the details behind the award,” Boeing said, “we will make a decision concerning our possible options, keeping in mind at all times the impact to the warfighter and our nation."

"Impact to the warfighter and our nation" - what jingoistic tosh :yuk:. Who has invented this silly 'warfighter' noun?

Warfighter
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warfighter

"Warfighter is a term used by the United States Department of Defense to refer to any member of the US armed forces or a member of any armed forces under the US flag. It is intended to be neutral regarding military service or branch, gender, and service status. It is frequently used in Defense Dept memos or directives which are intended to apply to all services equally."

So it's Spamspeak for 'serviceman' then? ('Man' as in 'human', before the wimmin complain.....). 'tis rather a silly term as it implies a desire to wage war, rather than to serve the nation. It sounds like some kids' computer game.

Of course it doesn't appear in the Cambridge Dictionary either.

I guess there'll now only be the 4 KC-767s for Japan - which are boom only - plus the 4 for Italy? After a substantial pylon redesign, they were finally able to trail the wing hoses successfully last year, some 5 years after Italy placed its order. Have they demonstrated any wet contacts on the wing hoses yet? I haven't read about any.

MarkD 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.

What 787-3?

Don't even joke about this. It would be in the finest traditions of British tanker procurement to foist ex-BA airframes on the RAF in a deal that is more favourable to the seller.

Seriously though, A330 airframes are quickly snapped-up on the commercial market - so what is the MoDs back-up plan should the PFI route be abandoned?

They could do a lot worse than piggy-back this deal. NG/EADS could build us a dozen, identical spec, and we'd eliminate the wasted time and money that comes with trying to procure it ourselves. The only aircraft that we've brought into service on-time, on-budget and on-capability in recent years is the C-17 - and that's because we had to take it in USAF spec.

Given how useless Swiss Des is, I think its more likely the RAF will end up with a PFI based on refurbed KC135's.

Boeing probably needs the production capacity to fulfill the 787 orders. Might also force them to make the long rumoured replacement for the 737.

LA Times: ........A source who was briefed on the selection said Northrop won in every major selection criteria category, which probably would make it difficult for Boeing to win an appeal.

And it appears that size did matter.

"I can sum it up in one word: more," said Gen. Arthur J. Lichte in explaining why the Air Force choose the Northrop-Airbus entry. "More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more [battle casualties] it can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability."

Funny story, the RAAF were sucker-punched into calling the MRTT the KC-30B. The marketing name for the MRTT for the USAF was the KC-30A, and now it is to be known as the KC-45A as its official designation. Why the RAAF didn't just stick with MRTT is beyond me.

If the MoD would only get a move on with FSTA, I'd be quite content for the RAF to call it Susan if it made them happy!

Now then. 139 aeroplanes for US$40 billion (roughly £20B) = £144M per jet

FSTA is £13B for, what is it, 9 aircraft? 9 X £144M = £1.3B by conventional procurement - so that's £11.7 for everything else over 25-30 years?

Great cost saver, this PFI bolleaux......:mad:

787-3
 

Northrop Grumman KC-45A
 

First of all, it's Northrop Grumman- not Northrup Grumman. Maybe a bit picky, but let's spell it right.



http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123088392

Hmm, so the US Department of Defense some four-five years ago starts using an admittedly 'silly' term designed to get all motivated about being engaged in a war when only a small proportion are actually on combat ops and they didn't consult BEagle about it.

I'm shocked and disappointed..................

Neither did F-4, L-1011, C-17, and soon to be F-35, and yet one could/will find them in the area. Strange?

One wonders about the KC-45/whatever being featured there one day as well.

What The Hell Are We Doing?!
 

So, to summarise the USAF is buying 179 of the KC-30 for $40 billion (lets call it £19 billion), thats a price of £106 million per airframe.

We, on the other hand, are paying £13 billion for 9 airframes (AFAIK). Thats a price of £1.44 BILLION each. That means the US is getting their 13.5 times cheaper..! WTF?!! this is an outrage to put it mildly. But the maths reveals further facts...

I know that ours is a 27-year contract, but these numbers mean that if we bought outright a fleet of 9, and replaced them EVERY 3 YEARS FOR 27 YEARS for brand new ones, it would cost circa £8.5 billion. THATS A SAVING OF £4.5 BIILION OVER THE FSTA DEAL!!!!! And thats if we got nothing for the second hand ones... Put another way, we could BUY 122 frames for the price we are paying to lease 9. 122!! WAKE THE F@C% UP MOD!!!

I hope (in vain I know) that the dimwits in MOD read this and finally realise what everyone else realised ages ago; WE ARE BEING RIPPED OFF.

I'm sorry for all the cursing and shouting but this would be funny if it wasn't actually happening... I feel like a pedestrian watching a motorway pile-up unfold....

Off to buy EADS shares now...

F-35A
 

Does this mean that the USAF will start putting probes on their F-35A's? Would make sense to allow them simultaneous hook ups.

Having worked in US Military procurement, competing vendors have the right to appeal an award. In some cases twice. Boeing of course have nothing to lose by an appeal, EADS has everything.

Not sure about the specifics but, the B and C models intend to have probes so maybes it's as easy as ticking the right box.

Protests ?
 

I think there was a "no protest" clause in the original RFP, and if Boeing wants to scream, their lawyers will have to do some sophisticated scrabbling ... After all, the 767's not an "all-American" product either, with bits coming from both Japan & Italy (whence the 767 tankers they're saddled with)In the civil market, the A330 has firmly sat on the 767 anyway - leading Boeing to do the 777, which at least sat on the A340 when it got unlimited ETOPS certification.
In the meantime, Northrop Grumman will have to do some wuick work to get the buildings up & running ... Apparently the scheme is for the sections to be built in Europe as now, then ferried to Mobile for final assembly, Mobile thus replacing Toulouse. Also, all A330 (civil) Freighters will be assembled over there too, which must have been a nice incentive.
F-35 Will use the centre-line FBW "prodder", being to USAF specs...
737 replacement. Quite a few years down the line, as it (and an A320 replacement) will need a totally new power plant to get the reductions in fuel consumption potential customers are wanting. Engine-makers busy in their experimental shops with geard fans and things ...

Beggers belief.......:ugh:

If American srviceman (and women) are 'Warfighter', does that make GWB a Warmongerer?

Flightglobal reports the price for the first 68 "KC-45As" as $178 millon per aircraft.
There are also reports that the Private bit of the AirTransport consortium can't get suitable terms now that credit has got crunched ... Even if the KC-45/30/MRTT/whatever is UK Gov's preferred choice, it'll be a long time (IMO) before the Veteran Transport/Refueller fleet's modernised ... Sorry Guys ...

Here's how to save £26 600 000 from the Defence Budget:

"Dear MoD. PFI - don't go there!

Yours faithfully, BEagle

PS - Please note attached consultancy invoice for £1 000 000!"

Well, Boeing says "there will be no layoffs, personnel will transfer to other lines and areas", like B-787, ICAV, etc. There might be fewer replacements for retiring/voluntarily-leaving workers, but no layoffs. If Boeing had won the KC-X, they had planned on hiring up to 9,000 more workers over the next few years, however.

Apparently, some sources claim there are enough remaining B-767 orders to keep the line open until ~2012 at the current, reduced production rate.

The real clincher here is the A330 freighter portion of the contract. While some estimates place the domestic content of the KC-767 at ~60%, and ~35-40% for the KC-45A, note that NG will be building at least as many freighter A330s as KC-45As... and 40% of around 400 aircraft is more than 60% of just under 200.

I had not known of the freighter "sweetener" Airbus threw in, that makes a major economic difference.

As for the USAF fighters, all you need is this:
you don't need to plumb the aircraft for the probe... the ARTS fixes this problem nicely--- you just use your normal fuel-transfer system to fill all your tanks.

http://www.sargentfletcher.com/ars.htm

http://www.sargentfletcher.com/co_in...mages/arts.jpg

http://www.sargentfletcher.com/ars_c...m#ARTS%20Table

Does:

Translate as:

"Given that General Moseley has said he wants the new tankers yesterday, it has been quietly suggested to us that it would be unhelpful and possibly even unpatriotic to make too much of a fuss about this one" ? Or am I being unduly cynical in my old age?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/2008030...y-3c8ed92.html

and so it begins - the political fall out and law suites - it looks like the USAF will not get what they want so soon.

"I think there was a "no protest" clause in the original RFP, and if Boeing wants to scream, their lawyers will have to do some sophisticated scrabbling ... After all, the 767's not an "all-American" product either, with bits coming from both Japan & Italy (whence the 767 tankers they're saddled with)"

Any more detail/sourcing for that clause, anyone?

Boeing has been breaking records with the 787 outsource so it's a bit much to wrap themselves in the flag about KC-767. I wonder how the French crews who fly the C-135FR feel today, if any of them are reading the comments from western US today about their country?

Those who worry about RAF's place in the queue need not worry - the Rivet Joint deal has provided a clear path to the solution to their tanker worries: why send a replaced KC-135 to the boneyard when you can offload it to the Brits?

Meanwhile, in Washington State:Maybe Airbus could persuade the Australians to let them do a low fly over Mr Wroblewski's house with EC-330 to show him otherwise. I didn't think the KC-767 as proposed for the competition (with the hybrid bits of -200s and -400s etc.) existed either, just the less capable ones sold to Italy and Japan.

Airbus have been guilty of paper-plane promises (A400M for instance) but Mr Wroblewski (whose unions had their "mission accomplished" banners ready) should remember that:

1. It's better to be a winner or a loser but not a sore loser (adapted from The West Wing)
2. The Machinists might want to organise that factory in Mobile.

February 29:Uh, maybe it had something to do with this? February 22:

Boeing has been breaking records with the 787 outsource so it's a bit much to wrap themselves in the flag about KC-767.

it is a bit "pot calling the kettle black" isn't it

here's an article on the subject, seems some 767 assemblies are also made in japan

http://www.custac.buffalo.edu/docs/O...nalPaper30.pdf


Asigning a nationality to a modern airliner is almost as much of a nonsense as doing the same with a car these days


Your right hand drive VW.............built in South Africa

Porsche Boxter...........Finland

Hell has frozen over.
Is there anyone out there, including those at EADS and NG, who actually foresaw this outcome?
Still, early days yet. The Air Force is now in the position of submitting what amounts to a Request to Purchase to Congress. While Boeing may not make any formal protest within the procurement process, nothing stops them from quietly meeting with various folks in Congress.
Should the next president be a Democrat (not unlikely IMHO), and should the next Congress have larger Democratic majorities (likely IMHO), all bets are off.

Another thing to consider.... How many KC-135s are there at the moment? 450 is it? Was this contract not for less than 200 frames? Does that not leave space for future procurement, or is the USAF going to reduce its tanker fleet by around 60%? And what of the National Guard et al?