USAF KC-46A Tanker Update

[mwpeters]

Hi Peter,

"O tempora o mores" would Boeings CEO probably have said after hearing for him this bad news

Not only the CEO,..

But the "better" looking aircraft won,....

gr
Boeing AMS

Haha who knows if it is better looking, thats personely I think. But still I think a big stepp for US military aviation.

[bigfoot]

Will the KC-45A based on the A330-200 or 300?

[ehusmann]

The tanker will be based on the A330-200. Maybe even on the A330-200F, but I am not 100% sure of that.

Erwin

[Thijs]

This order is also an example of a good relationship between an European firm (Airbus) and a US based firm (Northrop Grumman). In my opinion the knowledge from Northrop about the US decision system was also a big advantage for Airbus.

Hopefully other KC-135 users will also change their models into the KC-45 in the near future. It sounds not unlikely to me, looking at the age of most of the flying KC-135 and 707 models.

Only Italy has so far signed a contract for the Boeing version as a replacement for their 707 fleet.

[Bjorn320]

thijs you forgot that Japan also signed for the KC767..

[SquAdmin]

thijs you forgot that Japan also signed for the KC767..

I think Thijs was talking about Boeing replacements only. Japan doesn't have 707/135's in its inventory.

[Boeing crew!]

It's not over Yet!

Anger mounts over EADS tanker contract
Financial Times 03/06/2008
Authors: Demetri Sevastopulo, Sylvia Pfeifer and Hal Weitzman
(c) 2008 The Financial Times Limited. All rights reserved




The US political backlash against EADS’ victory over Boeing in a $35bn contract for refuelling tankers intensified on Wednesday when Boeing supporters alleged the competition had been biased and a key lawmaker warned Congress could still block the deal.

Norm Dicks, a Democratic congressman from Washington state, where Boeing would have assembled its tankers, said the US Air Force had made last-minute changes in the competition process that helped EADS and Northrop, its US partner, win the deal.

At a Congressional hearing on the decision, John Murtha, the powerful Democratic chairman of the appropriations defence committee, said Congress could block the purchase of the 179 tankers if the air force’s explanation for its decision was unsatisfactory.

“The political implications are important,” said Mr Murtha. “All this committee has to do is stop the money and this program is not going forward.’’

The air force decision stunned analysts, who expected Boeing, which has supplied the US military with refuelling tankers for five decades, to win the competition. The deal could ultimately be worth more than $100bn as the air force replaces its entire tanker fleet of about 600 aircraft.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the two Democratic White House contenders, have criticised the deal along with Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic speaker, and Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic majority leader. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee who led the Congressional investigation into the original Boeing deal, said he hoped the air force had conducted a fair competition.

In announcing the decision last week, senior air force officials said EADS and Northrop had offered a better aircraft capable of carrying more fuel, more cargo and more passengers.

However, Jim Albaugh, chief executive of Boeing’s integrated defence systems unit, on Wednesday suggested Boeing had been misled by the air force, adding that the company could have offered a larger aircraft, the 777, had it understood that was an important concern.

Mr Albaugh said there was a “disconnect” between the comments by General Arthur Lichte, head of US Air Mobility Command, and the way Boeing read the brief sent out by the air force. “The RFP was never about the biggest airplane, who could haul the most cargo?.?.?.?the most gas,” said Mr Albaugh.

[Trueno]

It's good to see that again the imperial US company's lost there bid for a contender. Congratulations to EADS for this order.

Trueno

[Thermal]

Think this is not over yet.

said Congress could block the purchase of the 179 tankers if the air force’s explanation for its decision was unsatisfactory.

In a year where the US citizens are going to vote I think politicians will do all they can to protect US workers (read: Boeing)

Look at Clinton and Obama. They were very fast to critize the deal.

[tva2]

Like I said earlier in this post

Nonetheless the U.S. Congress is going to be very disturbed or apprehensive about EADS/Airbus. They certainly do not intend to allocate this massive order to Airbus with a lot of U.S. tax money when the company is having its aircraft subsidized by the European government.

"Boeing Requests Immediate KC-X Tanker Briefing"

Link to article
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish ... 015233.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ghanz]

Hi all,

Came across this article this weekend, thought it was a nice follow up for this topic.

Analysis of the KC-45 contract by Taeke Zuidema for Technisch Weekblad of 2008-03-22:

EADS wint Amerikaanse opdracht van de eeuw.

De beslissing van de Amerikeanse luchtmacht (US Air Force) om de bouw van 179 nieuwe vliegende tankers te verlenen aan de combinatie Northrop Grumman / EADS North America, jaagt schokgolven door de Amerikaanse politick. Het gaat om een opdracht van veertig miljard dollar die kan uitgroeien tot wel honderd miljard dollar. Reeds in 2004 sleepte Boeing het contract binnen om voor twintig miljard dollar nieuwe tankvliegtuigen te leveren. Dat contract ontplofte toen bleek dat Boeing achter de schermen een onderhandelaar van de Air Force al een vette baan had bezorgd. De ontmanteling van het contract kwam vooral op naam van de onkreukbare senator John McCain, die eind dit jaar de presidentskandidaat zal zijn voor de Republikeinen. Mede dankzij McCain begon bet hele proces van loven en bieden opnieuw. Tot verbijstering van alle betrokkenen heeft een consortium van het Amerikaanse Northrop Grumman en het Europese EADS nu gewonnen. Boeing is bet niet eens met de gang van zaken en heeft reeds protest aangetekend bij de Government Accountability Office (GAO), omdat de Air Force vals gespeeld zou hebben. De GAO heeft honderd dagen de tijd om te beslissen. De Democraten gebruiken de winst van EADS intussen om Mc Cain te beschadigen, dankzij McCain zou Amenika banen verliezen.

Het is volgens de meeste deskundigen duidelijk dat voor de Airbus 330 is gekozen omdat dit vliegtuig beter beantwoordt aan de behoeften. De Airbus 330 is veel groter dan de Boeing 767 en kan daardoor meer brandstof, meer personen en meer materieel vervoeren. De New York Times schrijft dat EADS bovendien een goede indruk maakte met bet investeren van honderd mil)oen dollar in de bouw van een nieuwe 'boom' waarmee vliegtuigen in de lucht worden bijgetankt. Boeing heeft ook zo'n nieuwe boom, maar die bestaat alleen nog op papier.

Het luchtvaarttijdschrift Aviation Week schrijft dat Boeing verloor door 'een combinatie van arrogantie, het negeren van de klant en het geven van te weinig informatie' Het bedrijf ging er vanuit dat het de grote favoriet was en meende het zich te kunnen permitteren wensen van de Air Force te negeren. Het gevolg was dat Boeing verloor op alle vijf criteria die vooraf waren geformuleerd. Volgens Michael Wynne, staatsecretaris voor de Air Force, waren er meer risico's verbonden aan het ontwerp van Boeing en kreeg de Air Force met de Airbus 330 meer waar voor zijn geld.

Het argument van de politici dat Amerikaanse banen verloren gaan, houdt geen steek. EADS is immers van plan om de tankers te assembleren in een nieuwe fabriek in Alabama Dat betekent tienduizenden banen voor Amerikanen. Maar het betekent ook bet begin van een veel grotere aanwezigheid van EADS in Amerika. EADS ceo Louis Gallois aast ook nog eens op de overname van een Amerikaans defensiebedrijf. Het is daarom niet ondenkbaar dat Europa straks banen verliest. Door de dure euro en de lage dollar wordt bet veel goedkoper voor EADS om vliegtuigen te bouwen in Amerika.


English translation:

EADS wins American order of the century.

The decision of the USAF to grant Northrop Grumman / EADS North America the contract for building 179 new airborne refueling stations has stirrred US politics. Boeing already won part of the contract early as 2004, but this was cancelled when it turned out Boeing secretly gave an Air Force (AF) official a well payed job. Dismantling of the contract was “blamed” mostly on Senator McCain (currently Replublican presidential candidate). Boeing protested with the Government Accountability Office.

According to most experts it is clear the A330 has been chosen because it fits the needs best. According to the New York Times, EADS impressed also because it already invested 100 miljon dollars in the development of a new tank boom where as Boeings new boom only exists on paper.

Aviation Week writes Boeing lost because of ‘a combination of arrogance, ignoring the customer and lack of information’. Boeing saw itself as the big favourite and thought it would get away with ignoring Air Force wishes. The result: Boeing lost on all five criteria stated by the AF. According Secretary of State for the AF (Michael Wynne), the Boeing design had more risks and the A330 would be more value for money.

The argument of politicians that American jobs are lost because of the EADS win holds no ground. EADS is planning to assemble the tankers in a new factory in Alabama, wich offers tens of thousends American jobs. It also is the start for a much larger presence of EADS in the USA. Because of the low dollar and high euro it will be much more cost effective for EADS to build aircraft in the USA, therefore it is not unlikely this will result in loss of European jobs.


Greetz,

Hans.

[SquAdmin]

Tomorrow the British MoD is likely to sign a contract for the lease of 14 A330 tankers. Good news for EADS, bad news for VC-10 lovers...

[Hans]

when they cancel the Airbus deal, just because of the "buy American" doctrine, I guess all European countries could start with withdrawing from the F-35-project and start formulating a "buy European" doctrine

Hans

[Tintin]

when they cancel the Airbus deal, just because of the "buy American" doctrine, I guess all European countries could start with withdrawing from the F-35-project and start formulating a "buy European" doctrine

Hans

I completely agree with you Hans...there are enough European fighters (Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon) instead of American aircraft!!!

[ehusmann]

But don´t expect that to happen. Even in the American press there are plenty of articles which agree with the decision and condemn Boeing for countering the decision. Sure there are some members in congress who oppose the Airbus deal, but the air force is in dire need of a replacement and cancelling this deal will only delay the replacement.
My guess is, the deal holds and Boeing will either receive another big contract, or in fact will have a very difficult relationship with the DoD for years to come....

But thinking of the buy American doctrine:
Main USCG chopper: Dauphine
New USArmy light helicopter: EC.145
USMC backbone for ground support: Harrier
USN/USMC training: (Gos)Hawk
USAF training: T-6 (modified PC-9)
US presidential helicopter: US.101
And now the tankers..... if they want that buy American nonsense, they should have started a long time ago if you ask me!

Erwin