Boeing win $35Bn AAR contract
 

BBC news just mentioned Boeing has won the $35Bn contract to supply the next generation of AAR aircraft for the USAF.

Well did anyone doubt a different outcome ?!

Let's hope this finally results in building the tankers. Ten years is way too long to get it going.

Boeing Receives USAF Contract to Build Next-Generation Refueling Tanker

Wow never figured that would happen.

Boeing getting the contract.................who knew :rolleyes:

Amazing! Who'd have thought that Boeing would win the contract.....?:rolleyes:

Actually the rumors around the company for the last couple of months were that Boeing was not going to win this contract.

Looking forward to seeing what they look like and what they're armed with. :}

I guess at this stage a European victory was simply unacceptable.

I saw it in 2008 when the rules of the game were changed, deleting the value of additional capabilities, steering the deal to the aircraft meeting the minimal requirements (=767 capabilities) at minimal costs.

:)

More seriously are we looking for an improved 767 or something completely new ? I guess that the plastic 787 will not make a safe tanker...

The 787 would be too high a risk at this point, since it is not yet in production. The 767 tanker does exist, albeit in a different configuration. While some people say the new configuration is a high risk, Boeing has shown the ability to "cut & paste" wings, fuselage, cockpit, and software in the 737 series.

Another part of the decision that bodes well for those who use it is that less cost per airframe means more hoses in the air. That is what limits the tactical utility of the airborne tanker in these days, NOT the total amount of fuel available. There is only so much fuel flow available to tactical jets, and there are not a lot of B-52s needing tankers any more...

Could be the saviour of the F38 vertical engine development, provided there's enough time available to produce six off sets!! - not too certain about the stealth aspects though - has Boeing been stealthy in the past?

I wonder whether, assuming all other things being equal, this was compensation to GE for the F-35 second engine cancellation. :suspect:

The Pentagon said Boeing was about 1% cheaper than EADS, so if compared purely on capability, I cannot see how the KC-767 is a better solution than the KC-45...

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. :bored:

I think Boeing will spend some money now to convince everybody this is NOT a political decision, starting today.

lets think about it. 767 was the first twin jet to do the atlantic. it has a long good history.

I can't think of any thunderstorm related crashes for this type. I do remember the inadvertent thrust reverser deployment tragedy.

While the Airbus might be a bit more efficent...its all about combat capability and reliability.

So, how come France, Germany, Spain, and England don't buy the airbus as a tanker?

I believe this decision was inevitable, the most tactically capable, and, most importantly, reliable on-task performance, won the day.
There appears to be not much difference between the manufacturing cost per airframe, but considerable difference in the operating costs per airframe.
also...
quote - "Another part of the decision that bodes well for those who use it is that less cost per airframe means more hoses in the air. That is what limits the tactical utility of the airborne tanker in these days, NOT the total amount of fuel available. There is only so much fuel flow available to tactical jets, and there are not a lot of B-52s needing tankers any more..."

errr...from FoxtrotAlpha18..quote.."The Pentagon said Boeing was about 1% cheaper than EADS, so if compared purely on capability, I cannot see how the KC-767 is a better solution than the KC-45..."

I think the experts (and blind freddy) could see the better solution.

Simply put they need a tactically capable, reliable tanker. :D

The UK has bought it (well, leased it - FSTA), Germany already has newish A310s, Spain has 707s, and France has KC-135Fs. France will probably buy it, and Spain might if it can find the money.

:hmm:

And upon what do you base your assessment EW? What about risk - development nearly completed vs paper airplane, Boeing's engineering capacity? Any comments there?

I doubt GE would see this as compensation - when they were part of the EADS bid and Boeing are proposing P&Ws.

And it doesn't matter how many hoses you put in the sky if you can't use them - just ask the Italians.

Fair call D-IFF...my bad on that one.:uhoh:

Actually, the USAF said the total life-time program cost differential was GREATER than 1%... which, according to the rules of this iteration of the contest, meant that capability above the minimum required was NOT to be considered.

Apparently, Boeing's operational costs were enough lower than EADS' to compensate for the higher initial development cost by more than 1% overall.

There were always going to be 4 developmental aircraft and 175 production aircraft no matter which aircraft won.

I doubt that running costs would have played much role in "how many hoses are in the air" on any given day... reliability and "mission capable availability rates" rule that equation.

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.