Boeing awarded $35 billion dollar tanker order

[billiam]

Northrop saw the writing on the wall when the req's came out, and withdrawn, leaving eads the option of going forward on its own or withdrawing. One can say it was a cost driven decision this time around. Also missing in the current discussion here is that the 330mrtt cannot operate at all the USAF bases that the KC135 currently can due to its size. That is a pretty big negative, since that will force the USAF to either spend more money, or come up with a new deployment plan with less bases that their new tanker can operate in/out of. I suspect this cost was factored into the "cost" of bringing in the 330mrtt, costs that won't be associated with the 767 tanker.

[Alessandro]

Right, the UK intended the F-111 as a TSR-2 replacement, but this was also canceled due to budget cuts. This cancellation, more or less, led to the birth of the Tornado program.

There is certainly not universal agreement that the TSR-2 was some sort of super wonderplane. The British like to think so, but it was hugely over-rated.

I predict the same for the USAF 767, order will be cut due to budget cuts.
Anyways the RAF VC-10s are now flying and will be based in Cyprus,

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110301/local/gaddafi-forces-attack-on-zawiyah-repulsed

[Taliesin]

So what?? Just because it sells more doesn't mean its a superior airframe, nor does being younger.

No, the fact that it sold more simply means that it appeals more to the airlines. But how exactly would you argue the superiority of the 767? It doesnt lift as much, doesnt fly as far, has higher CASM and has been outsold upwards of 6:1 by the A330 in recent years.
Being younger as such doesnt mean an airframe is superior, but technology has come a long way from the 70s to the 80s, especially fluid dynamics simulation, understanding of turbulent airflow and supercritical airfoils.

But like I said, this is secondary to the bid itself, if the A330 offered capabilities the USAF didnt need, then there's no need to pay more, no matter how superior, if you'd be paying for capabilities you'd never put to use. The question Id like answered, though, is if the 767 was so spot-on to the USAF's needs, how did Airbus win the bid the second time around? It just seems grotesque that a european airplane, more expensive than the american one, with plenty of capabilities no one needs, would win the bid against all odds and opposition. How do you explain that?

If the 767 is what the USAF needs that's the plane they should buy, but this whole bidding smells to the high heavens

In my opinion the 737 is far better then the A318-A321 family

You are of course welcome to your opinion, but again you'll find yourself short of arguments pretty quickly. With sales being pretty much exactly the same, cost and fuel burn per passenger or kg payload being equal as well, the A320 and 737 are largely regarded as being equal.

[the dave]

No, the fact that it sold more simply means that it appeals more to the airlines. But how exactly would you argue the superiority of the 767? It doesnt lift as much, doesnt fly as far, has higher CASM and has been outsold upwards of 6:1 by the A330 in recent years.
Being younger as such doesnt mean an airframe is superior, but technology has come a long way from the 70s to the 80s, especially fluid dynamics simulation, understanding of turbulent airflow and supercritical airfoils.

It's also larger and requires a longer runway which would cost taxpayers more money to upgrade existing facilities. It can't fly out of all of the same bases that the current tanker fleet can.

But like I said, this is secondary to the bid itself, if the A330 offered capabilities the USAF didnt need, then there's no need to pay more, no matter how superior, if you'd be paying for capabilities you'd never put to use. The question Id like answered, though, is if the 767 was so spot-on to the USAF's needs, how did Airbus win the bid the second time around? It just seems grotesque that a european airplane, more expensive than the american one, with plenty of capabilities no one needs, would win the bid against all odds and opposition. How do you explain that?

They won the bid the second time around because the Pentagon was shoehorned into offering up extra credits for things that were either arbitrary or unnecessary (and in some cases both). For example, Airbus got an extra credit because the A330 airframe is larger. Well, so what? That's actually a disadvantage, yet they got extra points because of a ridiculous Congressional policy.

If the 767 is what the USAF needs that's the plane they should buy, but this whole bidding smells to the high heavens

I agree with this statement, but not in the same sense as you stated it. Congress never should have given Airbus an advantage over Boeing to begin with.

[Taliesin]

It's also larger and requires a longer runway which would cost taxpayers more money to upgrade existing facilities. It can't fly out of all of the same bases that the current tanker fleet can.

Good point, but then again the A330 isnt exactly known as a runway-eating monster. Is there any base or airport you could name that can accomodate a KC-10 or KC-135 but not a KC-45?

There was this cockup at the end of the last round of the bid when details of the other bid were mistakenly sent to Airbus and Boeing, someone suggested that this would open the door to a split decision. I kinda liked that idea. If the USAF has a need for 180 tankers, certainly there must be more than one mission profile or one payload range. I think it would have been a nice gesture to award Airbus with say 60 and Boeing with 120. That way, the USAF could have addressed different needs it has for different missions as well as showing a differentiated approach and "open-mindedness". I think this would have pleased critics on all sides including those within the USAF.

They won the bid the second time around because the Pentagon was shoehorned into offering up extra credits for things that were either arbitrary or unnecessary (and in some cases both). For example, Airbus got an extra credit because the A330 airframe is larger. Well, so what? That's actually a disadvantage, yet they got extra points because of a ridiculous Congressional policy.

And zero bonus points were awarded to Boeing? It's kind of hard to believe Airbus won the bid solely because of those bonus points. One would think that actually meeting the requirements and providing an airplane that actually fit the bill would result in more points, no matter what.

I agree with this statement, but not in the same sense as you stated it. Congress never should have given Airbus an advantage over Boeing to begin with.

They shouldnt have given anybody an advantage. They way the bid went Im not exactly sure Boeing won it solely on merit. If they did, good for them. The fact that Airbus won the bid and then lost it to Boeing's protest casts a shady light on the process. On top of that, the KC-45 is flying in service today. It's regrettable that this didnt cut Airbus any countable slack.

[billiam]

On top of that, the KC-45 is flying in service today. It's regrettable that this didnt cut Airbus any countable slack.

I'm pretty sure this did count in eads's favor the risks part of the evaluation. The eval assesses everything, costs, risks, capability. Break it down this way:

1. Costs - Boeing wins, probably by a nose, eads can argue it would take less of their tankers to fulfill the mission parameters
2. Risks - eads wins (caveat is that this is their first tanker system, booms, tanks, etc, while airframe is proven)
3. Capability - draw, Boeing can operate at more airfields than the eads offering, while the latter can carry more fuel, higher loiter time

Tie-break, corruption with unions in Washington state and Chicago -> Boeing wins
This administration must deliver jobs in non-right-to-work states, it can't have all this growth in Texas and the rest of the South, while the coasts bleed jobs and people. This admin is tied at its waist to the unions, and since union membership has been declining over the last couple of decades, it must do everything it can to shore up what is left.

[BoeingKing77]

Good point, but then again the A330 isnt exactly known as a runway-eating monster. Is there any base or airport you could name that can accomodate a KC-10 or KC-135 but not a KC-45?

Depends. How long of a runway does it need?

[Top_Gun]

Depends. How long of a runway does it need?

and that depends on how loaded they are, between fuel and cargo. I think one of the issues was that even though EADS was building the airframes in Alabama, the majority of the parts were being made in Europe. But I had heard the size issue was going to be a big factor, takes up more ramp space on top of needing a larger runway. My hope airport is supposed to be getting these, KPSM of the 157th ARW.

The NEWEST KC-135 is 46 years old, they can't cut back the units being built unless they want to shut down more units, another great BRAC decision...

And as far as EU buying the best product no matter where it's from, this was posted on another forum regarding this same topic.

As for Europe, they were hardly concerned when they rejected P&W Canada's engine for the A400 for their miserable, years-behind-schedule, all-Euro engine-by-committee. The more expensive, 2nd-best product won easily there just because it was local.

[Brad1711]

So, correct me if im wrong, but isnt this the contract which Airbus won, and then Boeing had a big bitch about because they lost?

I have zero doubt that there was a lot of pressure put on to buy Boeing because its local, and i have zero doubt that the opposite will happen if a European air force decides to buy a new tanker.

In this economic climate, gone are the days of buying the best product for your needs.

Boeing won first, then EADS won, and now Boeing won.

Boeing's bid has a much lower acquisition cost and lifetime cost, while meeting the mission profile given by the Air Force. Why would you buy a Hummer to do the job of a Camry?

[guamainiac]

so what?

We have an overall obligation to our people. It is important that not only the jobs but the profits stay in our country considering our trade problems.

For years I have been Eurocentric when it came to cars and with the exception of a few trucks and oddball car, it has been a slew of Saab and Volvo (pre Ford), out in the driveway.

Having just bought a few new Saabs in retrospect and considering the performance, I should have bought a performance oriented Cadillac, stripped some of the tacky items off and had a ball.

If we buy to protect our interests not even considering crew safety, so what?

[brianw999]

....... performance oriented Cadillac.......

Now that, my friend is what I CALL an oxymoron !!!

[Simpleboy]

Glad im not the only one who found that hilarious.

[Taliesin]

And as far as EU buying the best product no matter where it's from, this was posted on another forum regarding this same topic.

As for Europe, they were hardly concerned when they rejected P&W Canada's engine for the A400 for their miserable, years-behind-schedule, all-Euro engine-by-committee. The more expensive, 2nd-best product won easily there just because it was local.

Can you elaborate on that? What engine was that, what were its specs and what plane was/is it used on?
As far as I know, the A400M needed new engines because no turbo-prop engine existed that was powerful enough for the A400's design requirements.

Why would you buy a Hummer to do the job of a Camry?

That's a good point and Ive said that from the start. The question is, shouldnt the USAF be big enough and have a need for both the Hummer and the Camry?

[guamainiac]

Brian, thanks but I got the "Top Gun" Saab that was touted as the most horsepower ever put in a Saab and quite frankly it is a dog. The 280 horses are old nags when it comes to power.

In UK you would call it the Carlsson.

Caddy was quite a performance leader in the 1950's and yes they make some pretty quick cars today that will smoke this Saab which has a Holden motor that even the Caddy was using in some platforms.

American junk? Look at the lap times of the Corvette Z at "The Ring" in street trim versus the race Porsche RSR. My 2000 dead stocker was one of the best and trouble free cars I have ever owned, sadly sold for this Saab.

[Curtis Malone]

Now that, my friend is what I CALL an oxymoron !!!

It was, until this thing came along:

http://www.cadillac.com/vehicles/2011/cts-v/overview.do?seo=goo_|_2008_Cadillac_Retention_|_IMG_Cadillac_CTS-V_|_CTS_V_Exact_|_cts_v&utm_source=Google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Retention-Cadillac-IMG_Cadillac_CTS-V&utm_content=Search&utm_term=cts_v&gclid=CKG9kc2t2acCFZFoKgodciSg_A

552hp, available with a 6spd manual trans (yes, a stick in a Cadillac), currently the world's fastes production sedan. Put that in your Earl Grey and chug it.