Boeing tanker won?

**jlvfr** · 25 Feb 11,, 10:09

So, looks like Boeing finnally won the tanker deal? Or will EADS fight back?

Boeing wins

Reading the article, it looks like EADS was the favourite. Political win?

**Maxor** · 25 Feb 11,, 11:00

This was such a long convoluted legal battle that the side with the better lawyers is going to win in the end, and it was horribly mismanaged by the USAF for the better part of a decade. I wouldn't touch it with a full on bio-suit on this is likely going to end up as a disaster of a project.

**Stitch** · 25 Feb 11,, 16:58

Ya beat me to it, jlvfr; I was going to link NPR, where I first heard of it this morning.

I for one, am happy Boeing (finally) won the contract; we need to be spending our money here in our own country, not overseas (though I understand some of the construction of the EADS version would've been built here, too).

**jlvfr** · 25 Feb 11,, 17:16

Originally Posted by Stitch

Ya beat me to it, jlvfr; I was going to link NPR, where I first heard of it this morning.

Sorry

Originally Posted by Stitch

I for one, am happy Boeing (finally) won the contract; we need to be spending our money here in our own country, not overseas (though I understand some of the construction of the EADS version would've been built here, too).

From what I could find, most of the EADS tanker would be built in the US. And the factory would also build civilian cargo versions for the US market. As for Boeing's "buy American for Americans" argument, that's bull, tbh. Their own airliners have a very high % of foreign involvement. Look at the supplier list for the 787:
787
That's not just engines, etc. Major parts of the fuselage are not made in the US. And let's not forget what they did with the A-10 wing replacement contract:
of to Korea went the jobs

What I'm finding trouble understanding in the whole decision, is this bit (NYT article):
"Boeing’s bid was more than 1 percent below that of its rival, the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company, Mr. Lynn said. If the bids had been within 1 percent, the Air Force would have considered 92 additional requirements for the plane as a tiebreaker, and some of those were widely thought to favor the larger EADS plane. "

So... EADS was almost as good for comparison, but otherwise was better?! *blink*

**Stitch** · 25 Feb 11,, 17:28

As much of a fan of Boeing as I am, I do think the EADS contender was probably a better aircraft; the only reason I'm leaning towards Boeing is because it's (mostly) a domestic company, and they're looking at their C-17 orders drying up here in a few years (assuming nobody orders anymore after India gets their 16 C-17's). Hopefully, they'll just be able to slowly (or maybe not so slowly) transition the C-17 workforce over to the KC-767.

There was another thread on the forum here concerning this whole fiasco about a year ago (the thread, I mean), and the general consensus of those who know more about this stuff than I do agreed that the EADS offering was a more capable and flexible airframe. I expect EADS to protest the decision, especially since they supposedly won the contract originally back in 2008.

**Chunder** · 25 Feb 11,, 17:48

Just be glad the whole fiasco is likely to be 'over' now Stitch... Lets just hope the whole aquisition process of DoD doesn't use the USAF's as the gold standard!

**Skywatcher** · 25 Feb 11,, 19:05

I hope this is the last of the ****ing business.

**Albany Rifles** · 25 Feb 11,, 19:11

Originally Posted by Chunder

Just be glad the whole fiasco is likely to be 'over' now Stitch... Lets just hope the whole aquisition process of DoD doesn't use the USAF's as the gold standard!

As a US Army Acquisition Corps professional I can say its not.

There have been problems in the past but those abuses have been cleaned up for the most part.

I think what may have sunk the deal more than anythinfg is EADS teaming with Northrop Grumman. NG has had a poor track records over the past 5 years on a wide variety of DOD projects.

**Phoenix10** · 25 Feb 11,, 23:24

My job involves work on various USAF birds but we primarily work with C/KC-135 (I'm actually at flight test for one KC program as I type this). As such, I deal with a lot of KC-135 maintainers, pilots, and retired/active duty Air Force (not just tanker drivers). Many of them tell me that they, or the pilots the deal with, prefer the smaller KC-135 to the larger KC-10. Maintainers, pilots, and test pilots seem to have different reasons but it seems that most prefer the smaller plane and say it is enough to get the job done even in a theater the size of the Pacific. Point being, bigger (KC-45) is not necessarily better than smaller (KC-46) in the eyes of the users. I'm sure some pilots on this forum can add their 2-cents.

They say that economics had nothing to do with it but I find that hard to believe with the current state of the US economy. If, as stated, both aircraft met all technical requirements, why not give the contract to Boeing? While both aircraft would be built in the US and provided American jobs, at least with Boeing the majority of the end profit made goes into the US economy.

I admit that I am biased here. My company has content on both aircraft but if the Boeing win stands my company (and my department) will do the design and integration of the avionics systems.

**Stitch** · 26 Feb 11,, 00:05

Originally Posted by Phoenix10

They say that economics had nothing to do with it but I find that hard to believe with the current state of the US economy. If, as stated, both aircraft met all technical requirements, why not give the contract to Boeing? While both aircraft would be built in the US and provided American jobs, at least with Boeing the majority of the end profit made goes into the US economy.

I admit that I am biased here. My company has content on both aircraft but if the Boeing win stands my company (and my department) will do the design and integration of the avionics systems.

And that pretty well sums up why I, too, would prefer to see the contract go to Boeing instead of EADS/NG . . . .

**gunnut** · 26 Feb 11,, 00:08

I prefer Boeing because I just bought some Boeing stock...

**HKDan** · 26 Feb 11,, 00:52

So far it appears that there isn't too much noise coming out of Europe over Boeing getting the award. Maybe they also see that the economic situation in the U.S. right now makes it basically impossible for anyone other than Boeing to get the contract.

**Chunder** · 26 Feb 11,, 01:12

The preferences between what aircraft LAME's / Pilots would rather work/fly on has been around as long as there have been different manufacturers. I don't actually have the experience of working on both, where I worked only dealt with 737's - but nevertheless, there would be a few in the same boat as me 'Rabidly' anti - airbus. Then there were others...

I do think there is a hidden issue here and an opportunity for the USAF to take control of it's logistics issues, rather than be beholden to Congress supping in more C-17's (I.E the way most other airforces operate) I think that has gone by the wayside in the way the comp was evaluated from day one. An airframe isn't just for carrying fuel.

Given the way the comp has panned out so far - I can't help but think the Opinions offered by many (and there has been what appears to be some absurd logic i.e bigger = better, or fuel burn over career is less, or existing tarmac space) for fundamental positions it's probably best that one waits for more details to emerge.

The winner so far seems to be the USAF, Boeing actually underbidding EADS this time around, obviously by a significant margin. All that means is that is, Boeing, was obviously ripping the taxpayer off last time.

**Stitch** · 26 Feb 11,, 01:49

Originally Posted by Chunder

I do think there is a hidden issue here and an opportunity for the USAF to take control of it's logistics issues, rather than be beholden to Congress supping in more C-17's (I.E the way most other airforces operate) I think that has gone by the wayside in the way the comp was evaluated from day one. An airframe isn't just for carrying fuel.

Correct; my understanding is that one of the strong points of the KC-10 vs. the older KC-135 is that the KC-10 is quite capable of carrying a sizeable amount cargo, just like it's civilian bretheren. I'm assuming the KC-46A will have similar capabilities.

**Skywatcher** · 26 Feb 11,, 05:31

Originally Posted by HKDan

So far it appears that there isn't too much noise coming out of Europe over Boeing getting the award. Maybe they also see that the economic situation in the U.S. right now makes it basically impossible for anyone other than Boeing to get the contract.

Even EADS figures out that there is a time to just cut your losses instead of wasting more money on lawyers.