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

[HalcyonDays]

The money would be better spent on long endurance drones.

These are already happening as we speak, but the US will want to keep a role for manned bombers and reconnaissance aircraft for the foreseeable future and for threats we cannot now conceive. Counterinsurgency and counterintelligence, for example, can require some long duration missions in some circumstances. However, I think it's unlikely we'll replace KC-135s and KC-10s one for one.

[flyboy2548m]

He's one of us.

Which "us" is that?

[DaveGF4G]

Hey Flyboy...... what is your "logo pic" a picture of? I'm just asking cause it looks cool

[Leftseat86]

Nice going USAF. Putting our national security in the hands of the French

Why the hell is anyone surpised by this statement coming from this person? lol

Ignorance at its best.

[TAP-A343]

4) With all due respect to our many European members on this forum, the nonsense coming out blaming American protectionism or the comment about an "American Empire" is ridiculous. Sure there are good 'ol Boeing pundits here, but there also Airbus pundits as well. Also, please don't tell me there is not a push by some in Europe to "Buy Europe". The A400M engine deal given to EPI is a good example. Denying this only shows one's ignorance, IMO. But to some, ignorance is bliss.

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.

5). From what I read, I disagree with the decision that Boeing's offereing was so much more riskier than NG/EADS. Any decent undergrad economics class will teach you that foreign investment poses many risks (some smaller/some bigger).

There are also factors with exchange rates, language barriers and the fact that there are multiple soverign nations involved. What happens if international relations sour and tanker pieces (imported) are affected? That in itself is a major investment risk.

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

[Verbal]

(Emphasis added.)

Boeing: Uncertainty About Process Remains After Air Force Tanker Debrief

ST. LOUIS, March 07, 2008 -- The U.S. Air Force has completed a debriefing for The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] during which acquisition officials sought to explain why they selected a team of Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) for a contract to replace aerial refueling tankers.

The debriefing on Friday came one week after the Air Force's surprising announcement that it had chosen the Northrop-EADS team over the Boeing KC-767 tanker offering.

"We spent several hours with Air Force leaders, listening and probing, all in an effort to better understand the reasoning behind their decisions," said Mark McGraw, Boeing vice president and program manager of the KC-767 tanker. "While we are grateful for the timely debriefing, we left the room with significant concerns about the process in several areas, including program requirements related to capabilities, cost and risk; evaluation of the bids and the ultimate decision.

"What is clear now is that reports claiming that the Airbus offering won by a wide margin could not be more inaccurate," said McGraw.

Boeing officials said that they will take the next few days to evaluate the data presented and will give serious consideration to filing a protest.

"Our plan now is to work through the weekend to come to a decision on our course of action early next week," said McGraw. "It will be a very rigorous and deliberative process to ensure we're balancing the needs of the warfighter with our desire to be treated fairly. For decades Boeing has been recognized as a defense company that never takes lightly protests of our customers' decisions."

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q1/080307a_nr.html

[Brenden S]

CRJ or something similar.

[flyboy2548m]

Hey Flyboy...... what is your "logo pic" a picture of? I'm just asking cause it looks cool

CRJ200.

[flyboy2548m]

May we direct your attention to the top of the page:

"Aviation Safety Discussion Forum"

"Us" = aviation safety folks

I see. I'm rather flattered to be put in the same league as a USAF three-star.

[DaveGF4G]

Fuck Usaf Three Stars

[tsv]

1a) However, I do have a problem with European countries that will benefit from this deal, but either don’t fully support or give lackluster support to the mission in Afghanistan. Iraq is a different story altogether. Terrorism and radical Islamic elements are a threat to all nations as the UK and Spain found out. So it’s almost like these countries are saying “We don’t support the fight against terrorism (Afghanistan), but we’ll be happy to make some money off of it!”. Those with opinions like that should go ahead and put their head back into the sand.

The problem with this argument is that it assumes the mission in Aghanistan will actually reduce Terrorism/Radical Islamic elements. Can you show me one theatre in the world where a strategy of killing all the extremists (of any denomination) has worked?

Israel has tried killing all Palestinian extremists and are as far away from peace as ever. Russia has killed plenty of Chechens and while things may have quietened down a bit I don't think too many Russian mothers look forward to their sons being posted there.

The obvious problem with killing people is that their family and friends get upset. This increases the pool of people with radical views or who want to take revenge. So while we have killed scores of "bad guys" in this so called "war on terrorism" I don't see any evidence the Afghanistan mission has addressed the roots of terrorism or the number of "terrorists" or even the number of terrorist acts.

We might be winning a few battles but I see no evidence that we're winning the war. Frankly I can't see any evidence the Afghanistan mission will ever or could ever work.

The only conflict I can think of that has resolved in recent times is Northern Ireland. So perhaps we should be looking there to see how they did it?

Anyway the point is there is a big difference in supporting the fight against terrorism and participating in a well intentioned but unlikely mission whose chances of success lie somewhere between zero and not much.

Finally, this is an election year, which only makes matters worse. You're smoking high $ crack if you think this is over. Even if Boeing itself doesn't raise too much of a stink, you can bet Congress will. On CNN this evening, a report stated that the NG/EADS deal would create approx. 20k jobs in the U.S. (direct, indirect and supplier-based). However, if Boeing would have one it would have created and/or sustain approx. 50k jobs. With parts of the US economy really hurting right now, this is the last thing voters want to hear and in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and others that have strong manufacturing bases. Whether they will be working on any a/c at all is irrelevant. They will see fellow middle-class workers shafted and will revolt with their vote/protests.

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.

[nconrad]

Certainly it cannot be argued that economic benefits for the USA exist regardless of the recipient of this contract—either way, jobs will be created and money will flow into the US economy. The benefits surely would have been greater had the contract gone to Boeing. But instead of getting all up in arms about America getting shafted because Boeing lost the bid and blaming the government for a poor decision, one should also place a large part of the blame on Boeing. There is a big difference between striving to be the best and behaving as though you are the best. This dichotomy can be seen between Boeing and Airbus in this specific instance. The strong Euro and weak Dollar have been hurting Airbus because they sell their aircraft in Dollars, not Euros. They’ve been taking a hit and have been wanting to outsource and transfer some of its manufacturing to the Dollar zone in the US anyway so by building a plant in the US, they stand to reap huge economic benefits.

Had it not been for the scandal involving the pentagon and Boeing, EADS would not have even had the opportunity to bid on the contract. Given this opportunity, they busted their asses to put forth a comparable proposal and made a valiant effort to sell their ideas to the Pentagon. Now I make no claims of being privy to any of the proposals and I hope nobody else here is either as such an individual posting here would be an even greater threat to national security than the outsourcing of this contract! All I can say is that EADS was given the contract, so their plane must have suited the needs of the Air Force more so than Boeing’s. EADS and Airbus worked hard and it paid off—ironic that such tenacity is often referred to as the American Way. As such, they deserved to get the contract. Let’s face it, they beat us at our own game. They strived to be the best whereas Boeing behaved as if they were the best by assuming they would get the contract. In all honesty, the greatest fault lies with Boeing. The United States is not about handouts. Our government’s job is not to make our lives better, but to foster an environment in which we can make our own lives better. We can seize that opportunity and be great, or we can accept the status quo and be mediocre. I’m disappointed the contract did not go to Boeing. I’m even more disappointed that Boeing neglected their corporate responsibility to continue working hard in the same American Way that made them the great company they are today. Now, the entire nation will lose out on the benefits of this contract.

EADS CEO Louis Gallois referred to the win as a “major coup in the American market.” Europeans celebrated the creation of jobs as major media outlets throughout Europe published stories of victory regarding the contract. They’re laughing all the way to the bank and they’re doing so at our expense. They beat us at our own game and they did it well.

I’ve been reading this thread since it started as I was not sure which direction it would go, though I feared it would turn into an—at times—heated discussion over whose country is best and which aircraft manufacturer is superior. I’m happy to see patriotism; there is never anything wrong with taking pride in one’s homeland but to criticize another for his or her patriotism—regardless of where he or she may be from—is like watching two small children argue: “My dad’s stronger than your dad!” “No he’s not.” “Yes he is.” “No he’s not.” “Yes he is.” “No he’s not.” Let’s grow up, shall we?

[nconrad]

The only conflict I can think of that has resolved in recent times is Northern Ireland. So perhaps we should be looking there to see how they did it?

South Africa...Apartheid. Might not be quite as recent, but still fairly recent. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was unprecedented and extremely effective to that nation's healing process.

[landing-gear]

Unfortunately you will find it very hard to kill a taliban fighter if they choose to hideand fight in a mosque or other holy buildings that trhe coalition forces cannot attack!!

A bit like the british forces in N.Ireland...they had their hands tied by political correctness!!!
Sometimes the U.K needs to stand back....we are there to support the U.S as a result of 9/11
Where were the U.S. with the N.Ireland troubles.

The U.K should concentrate on the superb aviation products they produce for both sides of the infamous A vs B divide

[HalcyonDays]

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

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.