Northrop/EADS Beats Boeing For Tanker Contract / KC-45 Contract Awarded

[Verbal]

Where were the U.S. with the N.Ireland troubles.

Helping the terrorists.

Oh, really? Are you saying that it was official U.S. government policy to actively support the IRA? Or are you alluding to the more commonly accepted notion that certain American-based pro-Irish organizations funneled private money to the terrorists? Please elaborate.

[landing-gear]

...It was policy to ignore the blatant fund raising and support in the U.S...
but as with this tanker contract the U.S is happy to go along until they throw their toys out of the pram! when it don't go their way

Off topic i know.....

[HalcyonDays]

Oh, really? Are you saying that it was official U.S. government policy to actively support the IRA? Or are you alluding to the more commonly accepted notion that certain American-based pro-Irish organizations funneled private money to the terrorists? Please elaborate.

The latter, of course. However, the point is that successive American administrations did little to nothing to condemn Irish nationalist fund-raising activities within the US which were financing terrorism against the UK. Indeed, at times the US undermined some British counter-terrorism efforts - not overtly, but through conspicuous lack of support. Things did begin to change by the first Bush Administration, but for the previous 20 or so years before that this situation continued.

[Verbal]

Boeing is going to file a protest with the GAO. Watch for an announcement soon.

Edited to add:

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q1/080310c_nr.html

[Feyd]

With all due respect to you, if you read any World History book covering the post WWII period up until now you'll understand what "American Empire" means.

Sure there is protectionism on both sides of the Atlantic but the difference is that the Europeans don't trumpet themselves as "champions of free trade" as the Americans do.

Then what do Europeans champion, besides for constant litigation against American companies and "inquiries" that may lead to WTO complaints regarding the U.S. not allowing European-based companies engage in Internet gambling in the U.S? Obviously, that is way off topic, but I brought it to make a point. My point is that I see the EU "championing" their combined power to cry foul for anything/everything they see fit. If the U.S. has a law/policy in place to not allow foreign based Internet gambling, then countries should respect it. See, I'm seeing more overtones of the EU saying "respect us, but we could care less about your laws, i.e. what you think"). So is the EU for free trade as long as the balance constantly plays in their favor? We already have enough troubles with China and Japan on that issue...

And yet that hasn't prevented most Western European countries from buying American military aircraft.

Yes, after WWII and a large part of the Cold War, European countries bought many a/c from the U.S., but they also used many of their own (Harrier, Mirage series, Dessault, Tornadoes, etc...). Let's talk about the present or recent past, shall we? Some countries have purchased F-16s/18s, C130s and C17s. In particular, France and Germany seem to be going in the exact opposite direction. I would hardly throw that off as "minor protectionsim" my friend. There are a few countries investing in the JSF program. But look at the future direction.... Fighters - Typhoon/Rafale, Tanker - A310/330MRTT, airlift A300/310/340, A400M, Choppers - Tigers and a whole host of others

What major European nation has recently purchased a/c in the tune of $40billion, with a possible total of approximately $100 billion? It is my opinion that the EU is strongly pushing it's nations to "buy Europe" now and in the future. The UK is one example of a country that continues to purchase equipment from both the US and Europe, in accordance with their strategies.

[Feyd]

Yeah except who is going to explain to NG that they lost the contract even though they had the best product? And if you've started hiring you better start firing. It ain't over but ultimately the decision will stand IMO.

True, hiring has started, but government contracts work in a different manner. When a company is up for a bid, it will send out offers of employment, contingent upon said company, winning the contract. So yes, for the bid, NG probably hired engineers and other professionals, but if they would have lost the contract, the offers of employment (for most people), would be void.

My pop works for NG as a systems engineer and I was offered a position within NG after undergrad school. NG won the bid for his contract, but lost mine. He was employed, I was not, even though I had a standing offer and was technically "hired".

[Harlequin67]

Boeing screwed up IMHO.

There appears to me to be only one party to blame for Boeing not winning the contract, and that is Boeing.

One question that comes to my mind during the 2004 scandal was Why? Why would Boeing NEED to influence people in a criminal way? Did Boeing worry that there product was inferior?

One thought I had was why did Boeing offer an "old" design airframe, that is nearing the end of it's civil production run. The USAF gets a legacy product.

I believe that Boeing may have been hamstrung by the 767 being a smaller airframe, and the 777 being too large. The A330 may have sat very happily between the two Boeing products.

I think Boeing are also guilty of complacency. They may have thought that this type of contract could never be given to Airbus. I would refer them to the Marine 1 replacement program being won by the EH101. I think this sends a clear signal to American companies, Lockheed, Boeing, etc, that they need to provide equipment at a cost that has the same ability as European goods.

I do think, from reading about this issue on various forums and websites that there was a change in tack by the USAF. I think the USAF begen to review the bid in light of Trans-pacific reach and not primarily trans-atlantic reach. This maybe Boeings chance to request a review, but I would have thought that Boeing would have been offered the chance to reply to any changes in specification/requirements.

One final thought, this contract was to provide the best plane to help the US warfighter, if the best plane was chosen then should not the US public be thankful the right choice giving the US military the best equipment was made. To not get the best equipment at the expense of jobs must put the warfighter at risk.

[HalcyonDays]

One final thought, this contract was to provide the best plane to help the US warfighter, if the best plane was chosen then should not the US public be thankful the right choice giving the US military the best equipment was made. To not get the best equipment at the expense of jobs must put the warfighter at risk.

American congressmen are interested only in jobs in their local areas. Sure, that's their responsibility, but America is often too big for its lawmakers to conceive of a national interest, unlike smaller European countries. Wait till EADS and Northrop/Grumman merge ! This deal may just be the harbinger of much closer co-operation.

[AerLingusA330]

In my own opioion i dnt see y the american are being soo worked up about this decision surely u all seen tht the A330 was by far a better aircraft in terms of, fuel, cargo, range, fleet comonailty etc... the 767 is an old aircraft, with old tech, why boeing even thought of putting a plane tht wasnt even tested for multi role purposes n puttin it up against the 330mrtt was beyond me, just because the 330mrtt is a forgien product dosent mean anything, are u tryin to say tht becasue UA, US, NW AA fly forgein products, tht it is a loose of pride in ur nation comon get with the times, airbus put the plane forward to usaf, as did boeing, usaf choose the one tht they thought wud be the best, if it doenst work they will cancel n go with boeing, otherwise they have chossen the best product by far. Beoing are jst jeoulous that they didnt win tht contract n protesting it is my eye childish. putting the 787 up against wud hve been a better idea, but the 767 is a untested aircraft for MRTT and can only refuel one aircraft at a time whilst 330 can do three tbh, if im in an air combat i wud wnt to get my jet filled quickly n nt hve to wait in a qeue.
think about people n get ur act together n stop being sooo big headed because u lost out to something tht was never a winning battle

[Feyd]

In my own opioion i dnt see y the american are being soo worked up about this decision surely u all seen tht the A330 was by far a better aircraft in terms of, fuel, cargo, range, fleet comonailty etc... the 767 is an old aircraft, with old tech, why boeing even thought of putting a plane tht wasnt even tested for multi role purposes n puttin it up against the 330mrtt was beyond me, just because the 330mrtt is a forgien product dosent mean anything, are u tryin to say tht becasue UA, US, NW AA fly forgein products, tht it is a loose of pride in ur nation comon get with the times, airbus put the plane forward to usaf, as did boeing, usaf choose the one tht they thought wud be the best, if it doenst work they will cancel n go with boeing, otherwise they have chossen the best product by far. Beoing are jst jeoulous that they didnt win tht contract n protesting it is my eye childish. putting the 787 up against wud hve been a better idea, but the 767 is a untested aircraft for MRTT and can only refuel one aircraft at a time whilst 330 can do three tbh, if im in an air combat i wud wnt to get my jet filled quickly n nt hve to wait in a qeue.
think about people n get ur act together n stop being sooo big headed because u lost out to something tht was never a winning battle

Putting the 787 would not have been a better idea. 1) It is also an untested aircraft and 2) They are busting hump to get the -8 out the door. A cargo, much less tanker/cargo derivative is yeaaaaars away.

[Verbal]

In my own opioion i dnt see y the american are being soo worked up about this decision surely u all seen tht the A330 was by far a better aircraft in terms of, fuel, cargo, range, fleet comonailty etc... the 767 is an old aircraft, with old tech, why boeing even thought of putting a plane tht wasnt even tested for multi role purposes n puttin it up against the 330mrtt was beyond me, just because the 330mrtt is a forgien product dosent mean anything, are u tryin to say tht becasue UA, US, NW AA fly forgein products, tht it is a loose of pride in ur nation comon get with the times, airbus put the plane forward to usaf, as did boeing, usaf choose the one tht they thought wud be the best, if it doenst work they will cancel n go with boeing, otherwise they have chossen the best product by far. Beoing are jst jeoulous that they didnt win tht contract n protesting it is my eye childish. putting the 787 up against wud hve been a better idea, but the 767 is a untested aircraft for MRTT and can only refuel one aircraft at a time whilst 330 can do three tbh, if im in an air combat i wud wnt to get my jet filled quickly n nt hve to wait in a qeue.
think about people n get ur act together n stop being sooo big headed because u lost out to something tht was never a winning battle

Are you 12?

The military likes using mature airframes for their platforms. The rationale is that the early production bugs have been worked out, and performance and service issues are well known. So proposing a 787 tanker would be a non-starter. As has already been noted, it appears the 777 would have been a better airplane to base the new tanker upon than the 767. But that is all water over the dam now, isn't it.

[AerLingusA330]

Are you 12?

The military likes using mature airframes for their platforms. The rationale is that the early production bugs have been worked out, and performance and service issues are well known. So proposing a 787 tanker would be a non-starter. As has already been noted, it appears the 777 would have been a better airplane to base the new tanker upon than the 767. But that is all water over the dam now, isn't it.

The T7 is too large of an aircraft for wat the air force needs, and the A330 is a mature platform tht has been tested and also remember that the A310 which german and canadian air forces use for there air refueling tankers and they never hve any problems.

[AerLingusA330]

Putting the 787 would not have been a better idea. 1) It is also an untested aircraft and 2) They are busting hump to get the -8 out the door. A cargo, much less tanker/cargo derivative is yeaaaaars away.

Yea is boeing dnt get here act together they r goin to hve a problem on there hands, and remember the american goverement dont really care about the enviorment as much as the rest of the planet so if boeing did offer the 787 i beat u my next pay check tht thye wud pick it over the 330mrtt

[AerLingusA330]

Helping the terrorists.

Back to the effectiveness of tanker transport in the "war" on terrorism. While I agree that we can never win this battle militarily, there are some things that can occasionally be done to minimize or neutralize the threat. Air activity and long duration reconnaissance/counterintelligence missions over theatres such as Afghanistan, and indeed closer to home, may be necessary. Such missions may need air-to-air refueling assets to be effective.

jst curious but are either r u or landing-gear from Northern Ireland... because terrisom was the biggest thing in this small country fro 40 years, and i doubt the americans were supporting the IRA and paramiltaries during the 40years of pure blood shed and bruttel killings all becasue the british thought it wud be rite to invade a helpless country and start killing for no reason, reminds u a bit of wat america is doing atm with the middle east stealing there oil tht isnt there etc...

Get BUSH out and MIND YOUR OWN BLOODY BUISNESS, this is y the americans arent liked tht much

[Jet-fighters.Net]

Not to make this an A Vs. B war.

I honestly feel that the USAF blew there descision on the tanker choice as the A330 really has only 40,000 Lb fuel capacity greater than the 767. If you look back to the KC-135 the AF had the ability to purchase old 707 airframes out of scrap yard to keep the KC-135 fleet operating for 50+ years. With the 767 they can do the same as some airlines are starting to send older 767's for storage. With a newer airframe like the A-330 the amount of airframes headed to storage are next to nil and less likely to be purchased by the AF at bargain prices.