|
From Avweb today
Air Force To Fly Airbus Anyone who thought the drawn-out battle to choose the new generation Air Force tanker aircraft ended with the Pentagon’s decision Friday to go with the Northrop-Grumman/EADS consortium likely has another think coming. "This won't be pretty," Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., told The Seattle Times Saturday. "There will be a firestorm of criticism on Capitol Hill,” Dicks, whose Seattle-area district depends heavily on Boeing for its economic well-being, warned. Although the loss of the $40 billion deal is not expected to result in any job losses at Boeing, the contract would have created up to 8,000 additional jobs and kept the 767 assembly line going well beyond 2012 when the last commercial 767 is finished. It’s an election year in which the economy is in trouble and protectionist sentiments have been expressed by both Democratic presidential nomination contenders. Not only that, the leading Republican contender is remembered as the politician that killed the original contract awarded to Boeing in 2003, so it would seem the tanker issue will have pretty long legs. "We should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers," said Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., whose district includes Boeing’s Wichita plant. Leading Democratic presidential hopefuls Sen. Hilary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama have both been trumpeting protectionist policies of late but it’s Republican front-runner John McCain who might face the most scrutiny. It was pressure from McCain that scotched a 2003 award to Boeing for a total of 100 767-based tankers. McCain alleged favoritism in the bidding process and the Pentagon rescinded the contract in 2004. Now there are allegations the most recent bidding process was changed to favor the Airbus/Northrop Grumman bid. In the end, it may well be the U.S.-first sentiment that dominates the chorus of discontent. "Obviously, Congress is going to react to the American public," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said. "You can put an American sticker on a plane and call it American, but that doesn't make it American-made." Which aircraft will do the best job for the best price does not seem to figure into the current debate. French Jobs Lost By Winning Tanker Contract Not everyone associated with the EADS/Northrop-Grumman victory in the Air Force tanker contract is celebrating. The union representing workers at EADS Toulouse factories claims the deal will cost French jobs because of the consortium’s commitment to build an assembly plant for the tankers in Mobile, Ala. In 2006, EADS agreed to build a plant in China to win contracts there and the CFDT union claims that’s chipping away at the French workforce. British unions are hailing the contract saying it will secure thousands of jobs in plants that build major structures like wings. And, of course, Mobile couldn’t be happier about the decision. Civic and state officials are portraying the contract award as turning point for the social and economic structure of the area. "The opportunities for decades to come are just so real and so big. It's really kinda hard to put it all in perspective," Congressman Jo Bonne told WKRG. The first priority is upgrading Brookley Field to accommodate the factory and the traffic it will generate. |
Re: French jobs
There's a point about the KC-46A line transfer to Mobile ... Airbus will need space for the A350 FAL, but if A330 Freighter final assembly goes to Mobile as promised, the A330/A340 FAL building would be a good and economical place to assemble the A350. So French jobs won't be at stake either ...
:O |
Boeing have today requested an immediate debrief from the USAF...check the Boeing website for their full statement. Sounds like they are starting to question the procurement process.
The USAF have said that the KC330 gave them 'more' in many areas. But if the KC767 met the RFP requirements, and did it at a lower cost (which seems likely) then if the RFP did not give credit for capability beyond the basic requirements, Boeing may have grounds to appeal. Or put it another way...when the whole tanker issue began, Boeing were already working on the 777F. If any of the RFPs suggested that 'more' would give you bonus points, then why would they not have offered a KC777? ...I think this one has a little way to run yet... |
You can argue the toss either way TBH, but if the decision is overturned it may well have extremely serious consequences for US standing in Europe, quite correctly IMO.
The French media here are downplaying this decision quite significantly (or else have been caught on the hop like everyone else) |
NWSRG,
The KC-767 did not meet all the requirements in the RFP - it can't take off with full fuel from the required runway length. The only category in which the 767 'equalled' the KC-30 was risk (a joke when you realise that the KC-30 is already flying, whereas the bizarre hybrid 767-200/300/400 chosen for KC-X hasn't, and when you look at the JASDF and AMI 767 programmes). The KC-30 beat the 767 on cost (and everything else). The only leg that Boeing have to stand on is the strategic imperative of using a USAF order to keep Boeing healthy and wealthy - exactly the kind of subsidy that the yanks affect to despise! They offered an inferior tanker and lost. Moreover, the A330 is a better basis for a tanker because it combines better field performance than the KC-767 (which can't operate with full fuel from such irrelevant tanker airfields as Mildenhall or Brize, for example) with a higher fuel load. The 777 would offer even more fuel and even more cargo capacity, of course, but its field performance (the 767's Achilles heel) is even poorer than the 767's. It was thus a non-starter as a tanker. The cost, composites, demand for and bendy wings of the 787 ruled it out of contention, the 737 was too small, and the 777 was too big, and couldn't use real world tanker bases. The 767 was the only game in town for Boeing, and while it might be right for the RC-135, E-3 and E-8 replacement requirements, the A330 makes a superior tanker, and is better proven in the tanker role. |
But if the KC767 met the RFP requirements, and did it at a lower cost (which seems likely) then if the RFP did not give credit for capability beyond the basic requirements, Boeing may have grounds to appeal. A naive misunderstanding of the fact that the military customer will always want more, even if it isn't in the RFP document. By the way, here are the assessments made some years ago by an independent body: Given a 4-hour sortie from 10000ft balanced field at sea level, ISA, still air and assuming the same aerodrome characteristics for landing (4 hours from take-off to landing, land with equivalent of 1 hr fuel burn remaining to tanks dry), state the maximum offload capability of each tanker type. Answers were:
|
Any decision involving the expenditure of public funds is a political decision, in the literal sense.
While the Air Force may be saying "I want this one!", there are broader considerations, which will be fully aired over the coming months. The question isn't so much which aircraft the Air Force feels is "best", but rather which one would be best for our country overall. Either plane would perform the tanker role adequately. The question has to be which plane delivers the greatest value to our country as a whole, which in turn requires that we think of things like jobs, both now and in the future. I personally think that the NG/EADS proposal might actually generate more jobs for the US in the long term than would the adoption of one last iteration of the 767, but you can rest assured that all factors will be thoroughly reviewed prior to the actual award of a contract. As a Boeing shareholder, I have a natural preference, but the tanker contract would probably launch decades of Airbus manufacturing in the US, bringing many good jobs to our country. Finally, the Euros should understand that the advent of significant numbers of Americans earning paychecks that say "Airbus" will end government sponsorship of any trade dispute initiated by Boeing. |
"We should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers," Even the 767 platform with more powerful engines would have upped their numbers somewhat and put them in contention - not beyond the will of man to achieve, and probably without a major redesign as well. This has happened because Boeing have rested on their laurels - now they will be forced to up their game, which can only be good for aviation in general. |
"Either plane would perform the tanker role adequately."
Adequately in not being able to take off from Mildenhall with full fuel, you mean? The adequacy of the KC-767 would probably challenged by the poor bastards who have to fly those delivered to the two customers. |
I am guessing that it will be at least as adequate as what it would be replacing.
|
Wings!
Has anyone taken a good look at the different WINGS these planes are using? Believe me there is a difference!
|
But the adequacy of those aircraft is such that they need replacing. "More adequate than a worn out Italian 707" doesn't sound like much of a slogan for the KC-767 to me, and nor does "better than not having a tanker at all" in the Japanese case.
|
DefenseNews: Young Fires Back At Critics of Tanker Decision
Four days after the U.S. Air Force handed a $40 billion contract for aerial tankers to Northrop Grumman and EADS, the Pentagon's acquisition chief fired back at critics of the controversial deal. Additionally, John Young warned the ongoing backlash against the controversial deal should not drive jilted lawmakers to place restrictions on buying military items from foreign suppliers. "The tanker competition [and decision] is going to be put under true stage lights and scrutinized," Young said during a March 4 roundtable with reporters at the Pentagon. "I believe the Air Force can explain how they made their decision. And I believe the program was conducted in accordance with the law - statutory law and provisions guide how we do competitions." Pentagon acquisition officials "cannot punish [a competitor] for overachieving as long as they do so within my cost parameters," Young said. And it appears the Northrop-Airbus team's A-30 tanker did just that, according to defense analysts. In a brief issued March 3 that summarized the key performance parameters the service used to pick the winner, Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute said the transatlantic offering won in a rout............... |
KC-30 boom (attached to A310) refuels Portuguese F-16
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...90&c=EUR&s=TOP Meanwhile, as the Democrats led by Clinton, Obama and Pelosi berate them sneaky furriners and the Republicans back a French-backed concern (the world is truly on its head) McCain (who says he hasn't studied the reasoning enough to say if it's a fair go) says: "I've never believed that defense programs, that the major reason for them should be to create jobs," said McCain. "I've always felt that the best thing to do is to create the best weapons system we can at minimum cost to taxpayers." EDIT: SDD-1 is line no. 871 http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untit...30-203/1309112 |
He'd never be elected Prime Minister of the UK with that kind of attitude The industry, itself though, has huge influence and lobby powers, focussed on the media and aimed and influencing the decision makers. |
Jacko, I posted that with tongue in cheek.
I posted previously that the A330 deal might be a better one overall. The Air Force gets the plane it wants, and the US gains what would probably be a long term Airbus plant complex, resulting in thousands of well paid jobs. The tanker would be only the beginning of Airbus manufacturing in the US, and would give EADS the political cover it needs to take a step it probably wants to take in any event. |
Boeing News Release
Strange they haven't mentioned KC-30/45 so far. But they'd like us to know about this
Boeing Delivers 2nd KC-767 Tanker to Japan ST. LOUIS, March 05, 2008 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] Monday delivered the second Japan KC-767 Tanker to the Itochu Corp. for Japan's Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF), two weeks after delivering the first refueling aircraft to the Japanese military. "We are thrilled to have followed our first delivery on Feb. 19 with this second KC-767 Tanker delivery on schedule," said George Hildebrand, Boeing KC-767 Japan program manager. "This second tanker will add significantly to Japan's military refueling capabilities." The KC-767 made the 13-hour non-stop flight to Gifu, Japan, near Nagoya, from Wichita, Kan., near Boeing's tanker modification center. Itochu will deliver the KC-767 Tanker to the Japan Ministry of Defense following in-country acceptance processes. Japan has ordered four convertible freighter 767s, providing flexibility in carrying cargo or passengers while maintaining its primary role as an aerial refueling tanker. It features Boeing's advanced aerial refueling boom and Remote Aerial Refueling Operator (RARO II) system. Boeing is scheduled to deliver the remaining two refueling aircraft in 2009 and 2010. Boeing also is building four tankers for Italy with delivery of the first aircraft planned in 2008. Since the 1930s, Boeing has built and delivered more than 2,000 tankers that feature the world's most advanced aerial refueling method with the highest fuel transfer rate available. |
Air Tanker Analysis
Guys,
The excellent, special report in the link below will put a lot about the tanker competition into perspective - ......especially if read in hindsight. http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn090407.pdf Cheers, Jerry B. |
NG/EADS Tanker
The link below makes interesting reading ......... especially with hindsight.
http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn090407.pdf |
irbus wings
Lazer Hound - even if Filton is sold to GKN, the wings themselves will continue to be built at Broughton (ex- Hawarden/Chester etc), with what Filton does at the moment going there also ...
So no worries for Welsh jobs from this one ...:ok: Jig Peter |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 18:43. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.