It certainly looks like a good example of re-running the competetive tender until you get the correct answer!

The cost per KC-767 is 19 million more per airframe than the Kc-30 was last round, around 3.4 billion more in upfront purchase costs.

The KC-767 won on a “factored” costs. The life cycle costs savings may or may not ever be realised, the RFP used a mix of sorties which is an average of how tankers were used in the past 20 years, however it is not representative of how they are used today with the high operational tempo of overseas deployments.

What "total life-time program cost differential" means is the purchase price was factored by hypothetical fuel usage, MILCON costs, and capability.

The fuel usage is where Boeing would have won, however that figure is distorted as currently tankers are being used at high operational tempo, and are doing less of the training as a percentage of their total flying. That was not reflected in the distribution of missions in the FURA analysis.

Their train set, they know best. The long term plan of the USAF is to retire all KC-135s and KC-10s, and just have a single fleet of tankers. This will be done in 3 phases, this is the first phase called KC-X, the next two phases are known as KC-Y and KC-Z.

Some facts, the unfactored purchase prices of KC-30 was cheaper per airframe , and also was deemed to be more capable in the air refuelling role than the KC-767. It was found for the USAF to get their planned tanker fleet strength (600 KC-135R equivalents), they would need to purchase 42 additional KC-767s.

The purchase of those additional 42 aircraft (with an upfront purchase price of 8.1 billion), and the additional fuel burn, maintenance costs, and MILCON costs were not factored in the RFP.

Am I right in thinking the Russians tendered with their Il-76? Or have I got that wrong?

"Am I right in thinking the Russians tendered with their Il-76? Or have I got that wrong?"

There was a bit in the news about that a while back, but nothing materialized.

"There was a bit in the news about that a while back, but nothing materialized. "

It was disqualified for posting the application 5 minutes late. It was significantly cheaper than the other two proposals.

A330MRTT for USAF
 

Sorry if my memory does not serve me well, but didn't Airbus build an airframe for the USAF? Must have been around 2007. What became of it? Stored? Converted to an A330 tanker for Australia, UK, UAE, ... ?

The decision was taken in 08-09 after eads won the competition.

Everyone knew the 2 platforms.

New rules excluding the additional capabilities from the competition where pushed by congress.

Now the USAF gets a 20%-30 less capable platform 2-3% cheaper.

You can't blame the USAF. They just needed a tanker, slected what they thought was best, were pulled back & now do what's told them.

Listen to Patty Murray and other politicians for their proud confirmation:

Boeing news | Tanker shocker: Boeing 'clear winner' | Seattle Times Newspaper

EADS North America statement concerning U.S. Air Force Tanker selection
 

See: EADS North America statement concerning U.S. Air Force Tanker selection - News

found it...
 

The A330 destined for the USAF was MSN996. It is currently converted for the Royal Saudi Airforce.
Edit: MSN 925 also was destined for US, but is still stored

"One must also question whether Boeing has sufficient engineering resources to bring the KC-767, 787-9, 787-10, updated 777, AND 737 replacement all on line in time in the next decade. It couldn't do the 787-8, 787-3 and 747-8 concurrently (only one of which was an all-new model, the other two being derivatives) - the 783 was canned, the 788 is 3.5 years late, and the 748 is 18 months late."

Glass houses - stones?

The decision has NOTHING to do with the capabilities of the aircraft in question and everything to do with politics. Anyone who has been in and around Washington DC while this competition was running would understand that entirely.

Sadly I doubt the better aircraft won the day, but that is immaterial - the current tanker fleet is very long in the tooth, so I'm sure the Air Force will just be glad some new aircraft are headed their way.

The die was cast as soon as the re-compete was announced.

- GY

Sadly the 767 is also long in the tooth - it will celebrate its 30th birthday this year - and be 35 by the time it enters service.

only 35 when it enters service this is Beoing on a defence contract!

As a member of EADS Cassidian, this decision is truly a major blow to us, but it was not unexpected.

I and my colleagues in work believe that the USA has shot themselves in the foot by choosing Boeing. The chance of several thousand jobs being created has gone (Boeing will merely absorb the work without the creation of many jobs). The potential technology share, not just in aircraft, but in the world of comms, cyberspace etc, etc, could be jeopardised. But the point is that it shows to the rest of the world the continual hypocrisy that the USA can display. Open market and fair trading……only when it suits them. Democracy and an elected Government…….only when it suits them.

The USA wants the world to have a fair and level playing field, but they seem to forget (quite often) that the rest of the world expects them to display the same values.

BP should have pulled the plug on them; it’s still a big world out there without them. Even more so these days!

Nurse: "only 35 when it enters service this is Beoing on a defence contract!"

Yep, and then USAF will probably want 50 years of service out of it!! :rolleyes:

Reading the above post, I'm thinking, good on you USA for not picking a supplier that hates you.

On a different note, anyone who thinks that a decision about $35B public expenditure can be free from politics must be nuts. C'est la vie.

Guess it must have suited us.... :cool:

Eurocopter UH-72 Lakota - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

balsa model

My comments are my opinions and not the opinions of my employer. Also I never said anything about anybody hating anyone.

Having spent nearly thirty years in the Royal Air Force and a whole load of my time in the states I have the utmost respect for the beauty of the land and many of the people who live there. Its just the politics of the country that sucks.

Finally without wishing to offend you, they (the politics) don’t exactly think a lot about your country. No offence intended!

11Fan

Thanks, but it could have been more:p

KC-Y is right around the corner. :ok:

Canada gets some of the tanker action too!
 

Well how about you poor losers just suck it up then!

No offence.