PPRuNe Forums - Northrup Grumman/EADS win USAF tanker bid

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)

- - Northrup Grumman/EADS win USAF tanker bid (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/315624-northrup-grumman-eads-win-usaf-tanker-bid.html)

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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

.....

The Northrop-EADS bid was a bold one that mixed business and Washington lobbying with trans-Atlantic politics. EADS lined up a politically powerful group of senators from Alabama and Mississippi with promises that much of the tanker would be built in their states.

In Paris, at the annual air shows, Airbus officials and Southern politicians proudly displayed the proposed European tanker offering and made the argument that if the United States wants to sell its weapons to European countries, it should also open its doors to foreign suppliers. Politicking reached the highest levels — even Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany brought up the tanker bid in a White House meeting with President Bush.

Each side spent millions of dollars to sharpen its proposal, hire lobbyists and former generals to argue their case and wage extensive advertising efforts in Washington and at military gatherings in advance the announcement.

Quote:

Now, about FSTA.......

I've had a dream or is it a Nightmare.. FSTA drags on interminably. The RAF are number 230 on the list for the Airbus solution and Gordon and Swiss Des are struck by the thought that BA are retiring some old B-767s as they take delivery of their nice new Dreamliners.

"That's what the RAF flight need for AAR" - Just the job, thinks Gordon, a quick grey paint job and a couple of jerry cans for fuel tanks and a garden hose with a shuttlecock attached. :hmm: :ugh: :eek:

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.

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?

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?

Quote:

...Gordon and Swiss Des are struck by the thought that BA are retiring some old B-767s as they take delivery of their nice new Dreamliners.

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."

Quote:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,1207228.story

Quote:

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

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: