gunnut

I mean ledger wise, Airbus isn't exactly the same as the military division (forgot the name) of EADS. We know who makes the jets and where they come from. Legally, for lawsuit purposes, they aren't exactly the same.

I still don't have an opinion yet. So far I've read good arguments on both sides. Let's hope the airforce made the best decision with available information.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

JA Boomer

You must be the ONLY one still on the fence...everyone else seems to have STONG opinions on the subject.

Adux

I dont think this whole french bashing is in good taste especially when you have Sarkozy for a President.

Chunder

I degress... Boeing has already acknowledged that the 767 is dying. It has no further orders past 2012, the line has long since decreased its production rate and workers transferred elsewhere. The final, and last customer will be the USAF by default. They do make a lot of money supplying parts to really old tankers and they will be doing that for the 767 because at a time when everyone has ceased ordering them, the Airbus potentially could. Because its projected lifespan into the future is much greater than the 767

The Airforce had an RFP for a refueling tanker that could perform other missions. I don't think that it was a case that Boeing did not meet the RFP, and indeed the lines could be muddied by saying 'well we only provided what they asked for'. But obviously the AF are still buying a product. How far do you go in an RFP is discretionary by the company, and we see that in everyday automobiles that can seat 5 persons. Some attributes of the airbus simply could not be ignored for their value. Airbus has previously tried offering smaller airframes in markets competing against the 767 with Italy & Japan and lost both. it took a risk with the A330.. and found a lot of countries liked it... obviously also the USAF (Lets not forget that the decision panel was made out of many dedicated people trying to erase the stigma of previous scandal).

Its less expensive to operate because its not as big... because its not as big its not as capable. But, it's not all on the board really because less to operate because of what...

If you look at it this:-
Refueling Savings of $18.1 Billion over 40 years,
-..."KC-30 offers about 20 percent more capability than the KC-767AT. That means that the KC-30 can meet the same refueling requirements flying 20 percent fewer hours. The result is $452 million per year in Operation & Support (O&S) savings compared to the KC-767AT."

Airlift O&S Savings of $17.5 Billion over 40 years

-Compared to the KC-767AT, assuming all its hours flown are dedicated to meeting refueling demand, the KC-30's 20 percent additional flying hour allocation could be used to reduce stress on the over-tasked airlift fleet, particularly the newer C-17. C-17s are currently flying approximately 250 more hours annually per aircraft than planned, which generates increased operations and support costs. The vast majority of the cargo delivered is palletized, which can be carried on the multi-mission KC-30.

The Air Force could employ the KC-30's remaining flying hours to keep C-17 flying hours at planned levels. The KC-30 is a more efficient aircraft with lower hourly O&S costs than the C-17 due to its aerodynamic design and large cargo floor (32 pallets versus 18 on the C-17). Each KC-30 sortie can do the job of approximately 1.8 C-17 sorties. The resulting annual O&S savings would amount to $437 million per year.


17 Fleet Life Savings $19.7 Billion over 40 years

-The increased usage of the C-17 not only costs more in O&S but also requires the Air Force to replace its airlift fleet sooner than planned. The cost per flight hour is calculated by dividing the acquisition cost by the airframe's hourly life. The KC-30, with a lower acquisition cost and more than three times the airframe life of a C-17, would enable the Air Force to reduce C-17 flying hours and delay replacement. Using the KC-30's additional 20 percent available flying hours would enable the Air Force to avoid $492 million per year in C-17 fleet recapitalization spending.

-"Total estimated savings from refueling, C-17 O&S, and C-17 recapitalization are $55 billion. "

Oranges and apples isn't it?

This is a Quote from Loren Thompson, from Lexington institute From an Article in the Seattle times titled "Boeing beaten on tanker must-haves"

In it it notes that EADS considered Thompson pro Boeing. Thompson called the decision an hour before the official announcement

"The reviewers concluded that if they funded the Northrop Grumman proposal they could have 49 superior tankers operating by 2013, whereas if they funded the Boeing proposal, they would have only 19 considerably less capable planes in that year."

Because they have access to NG's/EADS proposal...

I know they employ about or atleast 5 times that amount worldwide... The total number of jobs directly supported by the deal was estimated at . But we can clarify that there is a difference from supporting jobs and maintaining jobs directly dependent on the deal.

According to Dominic Gates the Seattle times Aerospace Reporter
"Jobs: Perhaps 3,600 at Boeing and its suppliers in the state." I have heared from a Seatle politicians an 8500 figure rounded to 9000... but certainly nothing approaching 44,000.


The Defence Systems part of Boeing employes 72000 people worldwide.

Many jobs will simply prgress over to the 787, Boeings answer to the A330/A340.


Actually up to 6800 will be employed in the state as a direct result according to Senator Richard Shelby with 1800 at the plant & design.

General Electric will be building the engines... The same people making the probe and drogue for the 767 are also making it for the A330

The boom will also be fully made in the states Not mentioning the components, you could definitely say the amortised figures are much closer to one another. Thats why its very important when you speak about job numbers, it tugs on heart strings, and some people have direct experience with people promising jobs.


I hope my first posts o this forum arn't considered argumentative, i'd much prefer that with some consideration to some points people have raised, that if not now, that later you will see some merit in the reason why I decided to post this. You don't have to agree and can disagree Im just rtrying to point out some discrepancies in what boeings says and has printed, vs what it disprigingly says about Airbus. It cherry picks the best of them, and the worst of airbus..

If its because Airbus HQ is in France that warrants the swipe then so be it. But it will be flying a tanker made in different parts in the world, some of the parts and part design you would be pleasantly suprised where they come from. EADS has already affirmed that not many jobs will be created in Europe at all because of the order because of arrangements with NG... As the Aquisition officials said, the guidelines they received did not say anything about politics, job making etc. And neither it should. Who in their right mind would enter a competition where a large amount of unfair bias would be okay based on where it was built?

A lot of fine stuff has come over seas.

The USMC would never have got their AV8 for instance,
The Goshawks would not have been available
Swiss designed Trainers for the USAF

I cannot stress enough the importance of having a fair competition for the ultimate benefit of all.

Chunder

Both companies Hired former High ranking consultants from the USAF.

Jimmy

Agreed on all points.

That's definitely what it looked like. I'm actually a fan of the 767...I've only flown on it a few times myself, but it was a very different experience than the typical MD-80 or 737 I usually get stuck on during US domestic flights. I enjoyed it quite a bit, actually.

But in this case, Boeing seemed to think their name and history was enough to get them the contract. It also seems they dont know what the US actually uses its tanker fleet for. For once I disagree almost completely with highsea. I've spent a lot of time with tanker aircrews lately, and I've been able to fly with them. One thing that surprised me is that KC-10s routinely fly cargo across the country. According to one guy, more than half his CONUS flights are hauling cargo, sometimes with A/Rs enroute, sometimes not. Cargo is huge. Someone brought up the C-17s...another valid point, that I hadnt thought about.

During combat ops, I would rather have a KC-10 out there than a 135. Without question. The KC-45 seems to bring along all the "bonuses" that come along with a 10, like fuel consolidation (not always possible with a 135), loiter time, etc. There are other tactical considerations that make the 10 (and probably the 45) a better choice than a 135, none of which involve who punches the rivets.

I certainly would've preferred a "Made in the USA" stamp on these planes...but not at the expense of getting an already outdated and replaced airframe.

If Boeing really wanted the USAF to be a solid 767 customer, they'd have put a bit of real effort into selling it for the E-8. Instead they...*drumroll please* pushed the 707 to try to keep the line open (the USAF went out and bought used 707s instead). When the AF said no, they *drumroll again* offered more E-3s.

Granted, I wish the AF had taken them up on that last one, but that's neither here nor there.

glyn

[quote=Jimmy;467306]



If Boeing really wanted the USAF to be a solid 767 customer, they'd have put a bit of real effort into selling it for the E-8. Instead they...*drumroll please* pushed the 707 to try to keep the line open (the USAF went out and bought used 707s instead). When the AF said no, they *drumroll again* offered more E-3s.

Those who the Gods seek to destroy they first send mad.

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

highsea

My complaint Jimmy is that the RFP was for a replacement for the KC-135B, not the KC-10. Boeing could have come in with a KC-777 that would be a much better matchup against the KC-30 as a replacement for the KC-10.

What they did was to offer a replacement for the KC-135B as per the RFP.

A school bus is a much more eficient passenger hauler than a passenger car, but that doesn't mean I'm going to buy one to get back and forth to work.

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

BenRoethig

They offered a choice between the 767 and the 777 for the contract.

__________________
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

Albany Rifles

Having sat on source selection boards I know from experience the USAF really had no choice. EADS had the better aircraft IAW the RFP and the KPPs. They won in 3 of 5 outright and at worst tied on the other 2.

You are not allowed to look at job creation, Congressional districts, etc for any of this.

As a proud American it pains me to say but from everything I have read EADS put forth the better aircraft.

__________________
"Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves." TSGT Oddball, Tank Commander

JA Boomer

I disagree, the RFP was for a new tanker aircraft. The fact that these new tankers will be replacing the KC-135E's in USAF service is a separate issue.


Why would the USAF want a direct replacement for a 50 year old tanker design? Times and tech have changed.

Huh???

Sure Boeing batted around the possibility of using the B767 and/or B777 to meet the requirements of the RFP. But in their final proposal they offered the KC-767.

highsea

Doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree. The KC-X was defined in the RFP as a "KC-135 Replacement Tanker Aircraft".

Read the SRD's.

scorefour

This was the most transparent competition in history. Boeing knew exactly what the RFP asked for. There were no "surprises", even if Boeing is trying to make it sound like there was. The bottom line is that Boeing wasn't in a position to do anything about it. As I mentioned earlier, the 777 would've taken several years longer to design. It doesn't matter if preliminary design work was already done. That's not the same thing as doing the actual engineering and completely designing and testing a new aircraft. Boeing made the decision to stick with the 767 believing that it would ultimately be the better way to go, but obviously they guessed wrong.

Now we have to listen to "outraged" politicians vent their fury that we bought a European airplane. Some are even calling for a ban on foreign weapon purchases. This crap will blow over quickly. If Boeing does file an official protest, it should be denied quickly just because this competition was so open.

Boeing shot themselves in the foot on this one. The corruption scandal that sunk the first deal was entirely their fault. Everyone needs to wake up and realize that the A-330 is just a better sized platform for this role.

__________________
I want what I do not have.

Chunder

I want to point out several things;

In the History of procurement in the USAF, in many circumstances the better result is where politics is removed from the Equation.

USAF technological leads and secrets have often relied on competitive processes that bought about the technology. Examples of good procurements of the USAF range from B52's, to the political failure of the TFX (F-111) and its ultimate replacement with the F-14.

The fly off between the F16 & F-18, both of which went on and benefitted both Navy & Airforce. The YF-22, and YF23, resulting in the Raptor, the Ripping apart of the C-17 and telling them to get their acts together on price disparities, the Fly off between the X-32 and X-35. The C5 & 747... Most of these aircraft VASTLY outperforming their replaced type. The Stratolifter vs Globelifter, the F4 Phantom vs the F-15 the F/A 18 vs the A7 C-17 vs the the 146... they have often been one for one replacements but in many cases Vastly Superior.

Competition has in many cases driven that technological edge, which is why the US has had spectacular success with exports like the F-16. That has created far more jobs through technological ingenuity than any government handout to supply the USAF with an aircraft from a sole source competitior.

Airbus was taking early hits with it's A310 tanker and switched to the A330. The 767 was the reason for this. It is unlikely boeing ever had the intention of offerring the 777 or serious intention of offering it once it realised the competition 'was on', because of the incestuous nature of Boeings 'Airbus's new rivalry isn't as good as us because' - Same could be said for airbus too...

EADS changed its product, did significant R&D, even designed another boom.

Ultimately the USAF has time and again made decisions which have benefitted the U.S Industrial base by forcing it to provide an aircraft that is successfull in other markets. Phantom, F-16, SH-60, CH46, Abrahms, C-17 F/A-18, F-15, A4, F5.. AH-1 UH-1.

The Irony of it all, with Boeing aquiring the Manufacturer and phasing out the L011 for it's own products meant that in the long run, a design which offloads more fuel than the A330, couldn't continue... Where one interest bought out another. Just because your a US based company (lets not mention that its not all in the USA) and you have been supporting tankers for over 50 years is not an argument.

At the end of the day, everyone knew the competition was open, nobody opposed the competition, until it was awarded to a partnership which was multinational. The moralistic implication of such incredible double standards are extraordinary.

Chunder

TIME magazines take on the contest
Air Force Snub Good for Boeing - TIME