Groover158

Looks like a decision has been made, I think the Boeing supporters will be in shock.

Tanker contract award announced

From the link;

"2/29/2008 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- Secretary of the Air Force Michael W. Wynne and Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. Duncan J. McNabb announced the selection of Northrop Grumman as the winner of the KC-X competition for development and procurement of up to 179 tanker aircraft for approximately $35 billion..."

Interestingly, the word 'Airbus' doesn't come up at all in the article.

__________________
________________________________________________


My Collection: http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/...tion-4746.html

QFA388

Does that announcement signify the death knell for the 767 production line?
I thought this program was all that was delaying the final decision to stop manufacture.
Not being biased but I think the A330MRTT is an extremely snappy looking aircraft.

champpitbull2

This isn't over yet. Boeing can challange the decision and they undoubtedly will. This will go on for months just like the USAF combat search and rescue hellicopter replacement.

D-AIHC

Not quite...Boeing plans to shut down its B767 production line in 2012, after the last delivery to UPS on their order for 27 B763Fs.

Boeing: Boeing and UPS Finalize Major 767 Freighter Order

Oh no, not at all...I think the RAAF A330 MRTT looks fabulous!!! You should check out the 1:200 model of it by SkyMarks - you will like it, although you're not into 1:200.

__________________

Lufthansa - Star Alliance member since 1997

Groover158

I agree that it may go on for months. I did hear on radio that Boeing is yet to decide whether to contest the decision. Nonetheless, I am pretty confident the KC-30 (or -45 as they are calling it) will win out. It has so far attracted orders from Australia, Britian, Saudi Arabia and the UAE and seems to be a great piece of kit. I also think that developmentally (in terms of aircraft and flying boom) it is more advanced than the KC767.

I wouldn't blame Boeing for challenging the outcome, there are very big bucks at stake. Unfortunately, there has to be a winner...and a loser.

__________________
________________________________________________


My Collection: http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/...tion-4746.html

champpitbull2

One of the things I think Boeing will challenge is the whole size issue. It had been said from the vary begining by Boeing that if the USAF wanted a larger plane they could give them one in the form of the 777. But with the way the proposal was interpreted, size wasn't the overall issue. In the case of the 330 and the 767, the 330 wins out on many of the issues that deal with size. If Boeing had entered the 777 the competition would have been more compareable.
As a replacement for the KC-135, going with the 330 is going to cost an astronomical amount of money in terms of infrastructure due to the large amount of money that will have to be invested in hangars alone.

KC135- Height 41ft Length 136' Wingspan 130'
B767- Height 52ft Length 159' Wingspan 156'
A330- Height 58ft Length 192' Wingspan 197'
B777-200 Height 60ft Length 209' Wingspan 199'


With those numbers some hangars would have to be replaced in order to fit a 767 in a KC-135 hangar but many would fit. I doubt any of the current KC-135 hangars will be able to hold an A330 or a 777 for that matter.

gospodin

What do want to bet there was a bit of politics involved also? Throwing a big bone to EADS and Northrop is likely to keep our allies happy, who were pushing for the KC-45, not to mention taking Boeing down a peg, since they were feeling like they were the only game in town. I got a laugh at the protester with the sign, "American Workers = Better Tankers"...where did they think these were going to be built? They're building them in Alabama.

__________________
Steve


The one thing I've learned on this forum is "Don't argue with an idiot". Other people reading may not be able to tell the difference....

CcrlR737pilot

The Italian Air Force and JASDF will get theirs. Boeing will still test fly to make it certified to fly for those air forces.

Serously, I would have asked the USAF anything you wanted to do to make a tanker-even making a new one from another variant that we produce, then I would do it. They could have done a 767-300 tanker for them or the 400 version or a 777 as one just to please them. Somehow we can have a mix of tankers like how we do with the KC-135 and the KC-10s that we use.

__________________

I flushed a potato down the toilet and now we have to live in a hotel!

Groover158

I think you'll find that the -300 or -400 B767s are too long. In particular, when the aircraft rotates, the refueling boom which hangs below the rear of the aircraft would contact the runway due to the lengthening of the aircraft rear of the MLG. For the same reason, they dont offer a A330-300 as a tanker.

__________________
________________________________________________


My Collection: http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/...tion-4746.html

swisshansa10

Boeing is basically behaving like a child who lost in a game. My 2 cents bit.

Groover158

Unfortunately, Airbus would have probably done the same with a different outcome; and I'm sure they are not the only two aircraft manufacturers who would contest the decision in the event of a loss. There is frankly too much to gain for them not to contest.

__________________
________________________________________________


My Collection: http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/...tion-4746.html

Prestwick Pioneer

Me and my mates discussed what would make the best tanker and we thought the MD-11 woulda made a cracking MRTT but it wasnt to be for the tri-jet. As to the size issue, surely some of the old cold war bases would have acres of tarmac available for parking these aircraft, rather than throw money away building new bases.

Seperately, a few years ago, Flight International published an artists impression of a Lockheed Martin designed tanker to replace the KC-135 fleet. Not a transport/tanker, just a tanker. It looked neat too. I think it had overwing engines VFW614 style.

__________________
The Prestwick Pioneer

champpitbull2

It's not that simple. That Cold War infrastructure is probably in bad shape after all of these years not in use. Many of them have other uses today and are owned by corporations and communities. They have been changed. I'm not saying that current bases won't have the ramp space. It's the buildings that are going to have to be replaced. Places such as Grand Forks, which currently can hold about 60 tankers, will need at least 10 new hangars to accomadate the new tanker. Guard bases which sometimes have as few as 8 KC-135's will need at least 2 new hangars a piece. One for ISO inspections and the other for fuel cell work. Switching to a new plane is expensive to begin with but when you need new buildings it's very expensive. Not to mention Iraq isn't going to end any time soon.

Prestwick Pioneer

Why ten new hangars? Surely these aircraft will require much less servicing throughout their service life, and I would guess there are plenty hangars in the civil sector, if neccessary. It will be interesting to watch what happens over time anyway.

__________________
The Prestwick Pioneer

champpitbull2

It's a fact airplanes break, and many different tasks cannot be accomplished outdoors. Fuel cell maintenance, acft jacking, and the rigging of flight controls, can be done outside sometimes but it is much easier to do them inside out of the weather and wind especially in the north. If a base has more than 12 planes during the year their will be times when more than one will be down for it's ISO inspection at the same time. Doing ISO's outside can be done but it is not fun in the winter. Bases such as Grand Forks and McConnell have over 40 tankers a piece and have temps that dip well below freezing. Planes don't break on schedules so utilizing civilian hangars is not a good idea.

corby78

Champ brings up some great points. There are some jobs that have temp restrictions on them and cant be done outside. Then any type of x-raying has to stay out of the wind. Besides that there are restrictions on the personel as when they can be outside. And when your in grand forks or minot you can easily go weeks and never see above 0*F. Also to stand up a cold war base you have to think of all the supporting assets that would have to be stood up as well. From billiting and food to housing. The MX squadrons the OG, CE, on and on and on. It would mean adding more people, and that right now is the opposite direction the AF is going.
Prestwick, I know they didn't use the MD-11, but the KC-10 is pretty close and she is a beauty.

N. Eberhard

Interesting tidbit here. The current Sec of the Air Force has been out of the Air Force for THIRTY FIVE YEARS! He has no direct experience with tankers of any sort, in fact, he has been involved in space and missile programs for the better part of three decades since leaving the AF.

This is the guy who professes to know that the A330 will make a better tanker even though it has never been used as such and neither EADS nor Northrup Grumman have been involved in making tankers.

Am I missing something here?

gospodin

Good points, Nick. Look for some serious gremlin activity on these new tankers. And I don't mean the ugly little AMC variety

__________________
Steve


The one thing I've learned on this forum is "Don't argue with an idiot". Other people reading may not be able to tell the difference....

N. Eberhard

Rant epilogue:

I have never been impressed with our Senator Patty Murray (from WA) until this tanker contract debacle. Her speech/statement, which was directed at the President and Congress, brought up some outstanding points and questions which need to be addressed, if not just for the sake of keeping this kind of situation from happening again.

I do not believe that this decision will be reversed. However, I do think that there will be some future 'greasing' of Boeing's coffers via some other lesser publicized contracts to make up for them being blindsided.

Groover158

Hi Nick,
I think its a bit much expecting the Secretary for Air Force to have specifically had tanker experience, much the same as we wouldn't expect our Australian Defence Secretary or Defence Minister to have driven a tank, Captained a ship or flown a fighter jet. The Secretary's job is to promote the outcomes of the KC-X project as well as look after all other aspects of the US Department of Air Force. Could you imagine the uproar if the KC-X project concluded that the Northrop Grumman / EADS product was superior and the Secretary started to talk up the Boeing product. Also, I suspect that there will have been countless tanker jocks and maintainers all over this project, and if they haven't, then that's just plain dumb.

I think the public sentiment is split on this decision. Personally, I think the KC-30B is the better choice and you obviously think differently. It doesn't matter which way they went, they will have always copped some flack.

BTW, I checked out two of Senator Murray's speeches regarding the tanker and I find it interesting that at no point does she argue that the KC767 is a better tanker than the KC-30. Of course that is typical of politicians.

__________________
________________________________________________


My Collection: http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/...tion-4746.html

Groover158

I don't think that Boeing were 'blindsided', I just think they didn't supply a product that was good enough to win the contest. By the sentiment surrounding this decision, it appears that the contract should have been handed to Boeing on a silver platter whilst also allowing them to decide what they want to charge the US taxpayers for it. If Boeing were supposed to be a shoe-in for this contest then NG/EADs should never have been invited to tender for the KC-X. The fact that NG/EADS won the contest noting these factors speaks volumes about their product.

__________________
________________________________________________


My Collection: http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/...tion-4746.html

champpitbull2

The problem with the decision for me is the Air Force went for an airplane who's advantages stem from the fact that it is bigger. Boeing said from the begining that if the Air Force wanted a bigger plane they would offer the 777. Instead they offered the 767. I want to know why? Did the decision stem from Boeing being too cocky or because the Air Force gave the immpression that size wasn't the overriding issue? Personnaly I'm pissed at the US government and Boeing. Boeing should have offered the 777 along with the 767 for this competition. Instead they approached as if they had the competition wrapped up before it ever started. There are other factors that this competition didn't factor. What if the US and France have a fallout somwhere in the future, is there a guarentee that we'll be supplied with the neccessary parts? Trust me, making parts from scratch is not an easy venture. Should we reward a consortium that has been less then a friend to the US and is at the center of a trade dispute? In addition, the economy is not doing so hot right now. Should we really be shipping jobs to Europe and increasing our trade deficit?

champpitbull2