It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Boeing wins Tanker contract

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
On February 24 the Air Force announced that Boeing had won.



The U.S. Air Force announced Thursday that it has selected Boeing’s NewGen Tanker to be its new KC-46A air refueling jet.
The contract award, which follows a rigorous Air Force review of industry proposals, means Boeing will build the next-generation tanker that will replace 179 of the service’s 1950s-era KC-135s.

www.boeing.com...

Here is also a chronicle of the whole process.
Flight Global chronicle

Personally i think it was the right decision, from an American perspective to a better deal for the US Air Force.




posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
EADS announced that it will not appeal the contract choice which is good news for Boeing.

But........ The selection process was way too protracted and the fact that this took so long and had so many issues is pathetic. The Pentagon needs to do some serious reforms



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
I guess they will have to make more prisions to meet the demand



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CIGGSofWAR
I guess they will have to make more prisions to meet the demand


Whats that got to do with the tanker



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 



The Pentagon needs to do some serious reforms ...


I believe it has, as a result of the first stunk-up bidding process.

The smell of the impropriety and overt bias (even if for "national pride" reasons) caused all of this delay. I think the Boeing decision was definitely the right one, of course....never been an Airbus fan, from a design standpoint alone. But, they blew it big time, first time....and EADS rightly had a reason to protest the heavy hand of scale-tipping.

Made it even more onerous, this round, I guess....with extra scrutiny, and all 't's dotted, and 'i's crossed....or something like that......



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
And now Boeing will forever be known as Boo-hoo-ing.

Crybabies.

EADS should of won IMHO although the 767 is still a good plane.
edit on 8/3/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
sure looks better than the old 1956 model kc-135Q i used to crew. that boing was a wonderful aircraft, hope they still build em like that today.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
EADS announced that it will not appeal the contract choice which is good news for Boeing.

But........ The selection process was way too protracted and the fact that this took so long and had so many issues is pathetic. The Pentagon needs to do some serious reforms


As they say, Nothing is as it seems," and in politics, "Nothing happens by accident or happenstance."
As a witness of a huge triangle, I cannot accept that they are totally overlooked by THTB in terms of potential utility for all manner of transportaton needs by the services. I'm sure that at this point that triangles are being assigned priority roles more important than as tankers. But down the road that will shift even into the commercial area. The triangles are not just another war machine such as the costly subsonic B-2 bomber or the F-117a stealth fighter or even the up-coming F-35. the triangles will be multipurpose across the board.

In other words, the food dragging and stalling, and I would bet, even the awarding of the first contract across the pond was all part of a staged delay.

On the other hand, I see no reason in hell why US taxpaper money should be sent overseas to purchaser our own military equipment. Cheap bidder is not the whole damned deal



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Well EADS can still fight for the KC 10 extender replacement. But from what I read it all came to numbers and Boeing asked for 4 billion less than Airbus. Also Boeing would use more American suppliers than Airbus which seems logical. And finally I don't know why someone would complain that there was a nationalistic aspect of this. Would France or Germany ever give Boeing a fair chance of winning a contract like this?



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by carcharodon
And finally I don't know why someone would complain that there was a nationalistic aspect of this. Would France or Germany ever give Boeing a fair chance of winning a contract like this?


Funny you should ask that - the French Air Force has 14 KC-135 tankers in its inventory, alongside 4 E-3F Sentry aircraft and 14 C-130 Hercs, the German Air Force has 51 F-4 Phantoms, 70 UH-1s and is in the process of buying the RQ-4 Global Hawk.

The UK of course has 38 C-130 Hercs, 7 E-3F Sentry, 7 C-17s, 48 Chinook (with 12 more on order) and dozens of other American aircraft in its fleet.

Lots of American-sourced procurement going on...

Regarding the KC-10 replacement (the KC-Y procurement), a lot of the KC-X battle was around how "American" the Boeing offering was against the "Un-American" EADS offering. It will be interesting to see how Boeing swing that one when the only aircraft they are going to have to offer for the KC-10 replacement will be the 777 and the 787, both of which are as "Un-American" as the A330 was...

Yes, the 777 is sourced from all over the world and assembled in America, just as the A330 was going to be for this contract. The 787 is even worse!



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by carcharodon
...And finally I don't know why someone would complain that there was a nationalistic aspect of this. Would France or Germany ever give Boeing a fair chance of winning a contract like this?


The third round of tanker procurement was never "fair", as it has been catered toward the cheapest offer from the get-go. It was only logical that the smaller Boeing plane was cheaper. Actually, it is quite the surprise that Boeing was not really that much cheaper considering the noticeable superiority of the Airbus across the board. In the end, EADS was probably kept in the race to put pricing pressure on Big B.

There has never been a defense deal of this magnitude before, be it in the USA or Europe, so the question whether such a competition would have been fair in Europe is pointless; there are however enough large projects in Europe that the USA has won, so any other judgement than "probably" is invalid.

Anyway, the problem with nationalism is not the preference of a homegrown contractor (quite short-sighted with a multinationally sourced product anyway). The problem I see is the insulting way highest american politicians gleefully injected Euro- and Francophobia into the whole process - THAT, my friends, would never have happened in Europe. If only because it is insulting and the worst possible diplomatic conduct.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by carcharodon
But from what I read it all came to numbers and Boeing asked for 4 billion less than Airbus.


In addition to my last post - we shall see just how close to budget Boeing will come on this...

And the $4Billion includes operating cost over the initial operational period - which sort of ignores the fact that the proposed Airbus aircraft does more.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Originally posted by carcharodon
And finally I don't know why someone would complain that there was a nationalistic aspect of this. Would France or Germany ever give Boeing a fair chance of winning a contract like this?


Funny you should ask that - the French Air Force has 14 KC-135 tankers in its inventory, alongside 4 E-3F Sentry aircraft and 14 C-130 Hercs, the German Air Force has 51 F-4 Phantoms, 70 UH-1s and is in the process of buying the RQ-4 Global Hawk.

The UK of course has 38 C-130 Hercs, 7 E-3F Sentry, 7 C-17s, 48 Chinook (with 12 more on order) and dozens of other American aircraft in its fleet.

Lots of American-sourced procurement going on...

Regarding the KC-10 replacement (the KC-Y procurement), a lot of the KC-X battle was around how "American" the Boeing offering was against the "Un-American" EADS offering. It will be interesting to see how Boeing swing that one when the only aircraft they are going to have to offer for the KC-10 replacement will be the 777 and the 787, both of which are as "Un-American" as the A330 was...

Yes, the 777 is sourced from all over the world and assembled in America, just as the A330 was going to be for this contract. The 787 is even worse!


Agreed, they have this equipment made in the US. Now please tell us when those original contracts were made and if any other country had bids in and/or even had equipment that would met the contract stipulations?



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Humm, the A330 FAL here in Toulouse would assemble the green aircraft, then sent to Mobile USA for mission specific and general furnishing. I understand that Airbus USA would outsource equipment from international companies, no diferent to what Boeing intend to do.

Now, Airbus and Boeing bicker all the time. However, I think that in the next few years they should start looking at some joint projects together in order to counter the looming Chinese aerospace sector, who will plagerise existing Boeing and Airbus technology and sell it as their own and at cut down prices.

They are happy to watch Boeing and us fight it out and sit on the sidelines quietly waiting.
Airbus/Boeing, beware.

P.S. If you think it may be a myth:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 9/3/2011 by TheLoneArcher because: Added Link



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheLoneArcher
Now, Airbus and Boeing bicker all the time. However, I think that in the next few years they should start looking at some joint projects together in order to counter the looming Chinese aerospace sector, who will plagerise existing Boeing and Airbus technology and sell it as their own and at cut down prices.


Actually, both Boeing and Airbus are more likely to continue in the direction they are currently going and cooperate with China on projects, ratehr than each other.

However, I don't think China is going to move that quickly - tehy are only just putting together an A320/737 competitor.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


I hope you are right. However, they have a nasty habit of surprising.
BTW, I knew a Richard Price at school.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


Your question recognises that the European nations choice with those acquisitions was to either buy the US type or deliberately buy a less capable solution.

Might we agree then that such a choice would have been slightly puzzling had it been made? Maybe they could have re-written the requirement to make the cheaper and less capable offering look like the winning option?

Nah, that would have been silly.

edit on 10-3-2011 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aliensun

Agreed, they have this equipment made in the US. Now please tell us when those original contracts were made and if any other country had bids in and/or even had equipment that would met the contract stipulations?


Sorry, I missed this post somehow!

Well, of course Germany really didn't have any choice in the matter - being controlled by America at the time of most of the purchases....

However, France certainly had a choice - and unwittingly you have gone a large way to making my point for me.

If France was as nationalistic as is made out in earlier posts, it wouldn't have bought American - it would have directed Airbus or Dassault to build a tanker aircraft, or an AEW aircraft, or a transport. Costs wouldnt have mattered because this would be a nationalistic program, so cheapest wouldnt win.

And as France ended up with C-130s, Sentrys and KC-135s....

Britain on the other hand tried to be nationalistic, converting Victor and Vulcan bombers to the tanker role, then VC-10s and ex-civil L-1011s. They also spent billions on the Nimrod AEW aircraft, which was eventually scrapped before completion and Sentrys bought instead (at a greater cost than originally proposed).

Its worth noting that the Boeing tanker offering doesn't actually exist yet (in any form - its a special hybrid version of the 767 rather than any existing variant, it uses a new boom and not the one available for the KC-767 sold to Italy et al), so America is actually doing what I suggest above - directing Boeing to build a domestic product where one currently doesn't exist.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


Sorry, I don't presume that as an answer(s).

I doubt any of those countries had the capabilities to build their versions of any of those craft we supplied at that time. For certain, France would have insisted on their own manufacturers supplying their equipment. And/or as I lead off my first post, "Nothing is as it seems"...when contracts are let.

It is absolutely amazing that all of you folks that live and breath military aircraft can totally ignore the triangles and what American companies are likely building them.

For outfits such as Jane's and industry publications, I can understand how the censorship muzzles can be enforced, but in the public area--ignoring dis- and misinformation efforts for the moment--there is a tremendous void in thinking about what MUST be out there beyond the F-35. Such lack of foresight if not blindness is just totally amazing!

(Anybody want to hear about my close-encounter triangle sighting in 1998? No, I suppose not.)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Jet tanker aircraft


1) maximum speed

Victor K Mk2 1040 km/h
Vulcan K Mk2 1038 km/h
KC-10A Extender 996 km/h
A310 MRTT 978 km/h
Tristar K Mk1 969 km/h
KC-135R Stratotanker 933 km/h
Vickers VC10 K Mk3 933 km/h
KC-767A 915 km/h
Valiant B(K) Mk1 913 km/h
A330 MRTT 880 km/h
Il-78M "Midas" 850 km/h


2) rate of climb

KC-10A Extender 2094 m/min
KC-135R Stratotanker 1490 m/min
Valiant B(K) Mk1 1219 m/min
Tristar K Mk1 858 m/min


3) ceiling

Vulcan K Mk2 19812 m
Victor K Mk2 16764 m
Valiant B(K) Mk1 16500 m
KC-135R Stratotanker 15200 m
Vickers VC10 K Mk3 13105 m
Tristar K Mk1 13000 m
KC-10A Extender 12727 m
A330 MRTT 12600 m
A310 MRTT 12500 m
KC-767A 12200 m
Il-78M "Midas" 12000 m


4) engine thrust

KC-10A Extender 708 kN
Tristar K Mk1 667,2 kN
A330 MRTT 640 kN
KC-767A 536 kN
A310 MRTT 524 kN
Il-78M "Midas" 472 kN
Vickers VC10 K MK3 400,4 kN
KC-135R Stratotanker 388,96 kN
Vulcan K Mk2 356 kN
Victor K Mk2 307,2 kN
Valiant B(K) Mk1 188 kN


5) fuel payload

KC-10A Extender 160200 kg
Tristar K Mk1 136080 kg
A330 MRTT 111000 kg
KC-135R Stratotanker 92210 kg
KC-767A 91600 kg
Il-78M "Midas" 90000 kg
Vickers VC10 K Mk3 78000 kg
A310 MRTT 78000 kg
Vulcan K Mk2 45000 kg
Victor K Mk2 41000 kg
Valiant B(K) Mk1 20410 kg


6) maximum range

KC-10A Extender 18507 km
KC-135R Stratotanker 17766 km
A330 MRTT 14800 km
KC-767A 12200 km
Tristar K Mk1 11297 km
Victor K MK2 9600 km
Vickers VC10 K Mk3 9412 km
A310 MRTT 8889 km
Vulcan K Mk2 7408 km
Il-78M "Midas" 7300 km
Valiant B(K) Mk1 7242 km


7) production

KC-135 Stratotanker 803
KC-10 Extender 64
Valiant B(PR)K1/B(K)1 57
Victor Bk1/BK1A/BK1A(K2P)/K2 55
Il-78 "Midas" 53
Vickers VC10 C1K/K2/K3/K4 28
Boeing KE-3A 8
Tristar K1/KC1 6
Vulcan K2 6
A310 MRTT 6
CC-137 Husky 5
KC-767 5
KC-137 Stratoliner 4
Boeing 707T/T 2
A330 MRTT 2



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join