Boeing gets Tanker Contract

Re: Boeing Wins Restaged U.S. Air Force KC-X

MikeD said:
Nope, not really. I personally thought the A330 was the better aircraft than the 767, and so did the AF in 2009 until Boeing threw a fit about it. Don't know if Airbus will complain about this award though.

So far as only use products made in America, we have a number of military products we use that are foreign made or licensed. See the Harrier and the Coast Guard Falcons and Dolphins.
Click to expand...

Like H & K rifles and side arms. They make some awesome toys. I own two myself.

I am glad Boeing got the contract. I can't speak as which plane meets the requirements better. But I have a hunch the Boeing would last longer than an airbus would. Now we will have to see if Boeing can deliver the promised numbers.
 
While glad Boeing got it part of me wanted it for AL to get the work. Anyone know how much plans to be outsourced from the US for the project. Also why doesn't the contract (or does it) stipulate how much needs to be built in the US? Other government contracts do.
 
WestIndian425 said:
Also, it was a joint EADS - Grumman venture to be built in the United States. :)
Click to expand...

Northrup-Grumman pulled out of the joint bid after the first one got axed... this one was all EADS (aka Airbus). At least that's how I understand it.

Happy to see the money and jobs staying here!
 
Great ! Now the tankers are going to be 1970's designed airplanes. Quite a interesting way of doing business. In the meantime, the 787 is still not ready.
 
Pépé le Pilot said:
Great ! Now the tankers are going to be 1970's designed airplanes. Quite a interesting way of doing business. In the meantime, the 787 is still not ready.
Click to expand...

We get it, you don't like Boeing ;)

To be quite honest, I know the Air Force needs new tankers... but this whole bid process has seemed really crooked to me from both the EADS and Boeing sides. So I hope we can just get on with it at this point and build some tankers. And if they were designed in the 70's who gives a rats butt, they'll be manufactured in the future, and that's good for a lot of people :)
 
Pépé le Pilot said:
Great ! Now the tankers are going to be 1970's designed airplanes. Quite a interesting way of doing business. In the meantime, the 787 is still not ready.
Click to expand...


Understand this - and I admire your nationalism (as we Americans are exhibiting our own here in the thread) but to be completely fair, the A380 was beset by problems as well, and the A350 has also been up-and-down. That doesn't mean that Boeing is ok with the 787 debacle, but it isn't unique either - particularly when changing how these kinds of airplanes are developed. I bet if Boeing has stuck to some kind of more traditional design and built scheme the airplane would be much further along - just a guess though.
 
I dunno where all the grumbling about *where* the airplane was built comes from. Yes, it's a good thing to see the money going to American jobs and the economy.. and it's a point of personal pride for Americans, I'm sure.

... but hey, without French military products, would the USA even be here? The historical perspective kinda makes me chuckle, sometimes.
 
Firebird2XC said:
I dunno where all the grumbling about *where* the airplane was built comes from. Yes, it's a good thing to see the money going to American jobs and the economy.. and it's a point of personal pride for Americans, I'm sure.

... but hey, without French military products, would the USA even be here? The historical perspective kinda makes me chuckle, sometimes.
Click to expand...

In a globalized economy it is really hard to tell where something is from. The 787 I believe has major compenents built from all over the world and then assembled here (I think. I'm not really sure, it isn't a taildragging airplane so I have little knowledge or concern, but I think that's what I read).

To answer your question - America would not exist without French military products. On the other hand, France might not exist without the American military - so it is a circular question. Certainly you could say its a mutually beneficial relationship as they helped us in the 1780's and we helped them in the 1940's (and arguably since then in the form of our nuclear umbrella and huge defense costs that subsidized much of western Europe's security - not just the French). So, much like early investors in Google, France has benefitted from its early investment in the USA and the USA is grateful for the early investment.
 
There are a LOT of AMERICANS that are going to find employment from this deal. From ramping up the 67 line in Washington to the folks in Wichita (who have been decimated in the aviation world) who will convert the jets to mil-specs. EADS will contest this....almost 100% of multi-million dollar contracts are...it's the nature of the game. As for the 767 being "old", well, it's proven. It will have the avionics suite that is comparable to the 777 which will be fantastic. The -135 has definitely been a superior product over the last 50 years...and it's time for a GOOD replacement. Even the KC-10 is getting "up there" in age; the dependability rate is in the tank and they are just now starting to modify the jet for CNS. Airbus builds a decent product, but they don't age very well whereas Boeings do very well...

As for the contract award, it was on the up and up. After the debacle the last time around, the contracting world has been turned up on it's head. You should see the pain we are going through for the C-5 training contract. It's not worth NEARLY as much as the tanker (around mid half billion), but the absolute pain we are enduring to "make sure it's right" is just about ridiculous.
 
Pépé le Pilot said:
Great ! Now the tankers are going to be 1970's designed airplanes. Quite a interesting way of doing business. In the meantime, the 787 is still not ready.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. The latest 767s are significantly upgraded from the first versions that came out.
 
HeyEng said:
As for the contract award, it was on the up and up. After the debacle the last time around, the contracting world has been turned up on it's head. You should see the pain we are going through for the C-5 training contract. It's not worth NEARLY as much as the tanker (around mid half billion), but the absolute pain we are enduring to "make sure it's right" is just about ridiculous.
Click to expand...


I'm glad to hear that. It's important enough to be done right.
 
As a Seattle resident, I'm glad Boeing got the initial contract. Down the road, I think EADS will probably get the contract for a KC-10 replacement.

I always remember, however, that Europe is a major partner and customer for US arms, especially aircraft. Just off the top of my head (not the WikiGoogle), the current inventories of European air forces include the B200, CH-47, AH-64, L-1011, C-130, KC-135, F-4, CH-53, E-3, C-17, UH-1, F-16, F-18, KC-10, F-5, OH-58, UH-60, and notably Boeing's KC-767 in Italy. I'm probably forgetting a few. They are also major partners on the F-35, which we're hoping they'll buy from us in large numbers. As much as I'm thrilled that Boeing jobs will be saved and created, I also acknowledge that the US has received a ton of European taxpayers' money for our defense products. So, I'm not opposed to our military occasionally buying airframes from EADS, Dassault, Saab, etc. if they're best suited for the mission, even in these tough times.
 
Center_Mid said:
As a Seattle resident, I'm glad Boeing got the initial contract. Down the road, I think EADS will probably get the contract for a KC-10 replacement.
Click to expand...

I might be speaking out of turn here, but I am not so sure that there will be a specific replacement for the -10. As it stands now, they don't carry too much cargo and I *believe* the 767 will have a cargo capacity. I just finished a simcert class and there was a -10 and a -135 yoke actuator in the class with me, so I would have to ask them for sure.
 
I guess it depends on how the "767NG" performs. The rumor-speculation I heard was that the shorter range 767 would be the main Euro-Atlantic theater airframe and the eventual KC-10 replacement would be used in the Asia-Oceana-Pacific theater. That being said, anything we hear now about what could happen beyond the initial contract award is probably meaningless.
 
trafficinsight said:
We get it, you don't like Boeing ;)

To be quite honest, I know the Air Force needs new tankers... but this whole bid process has seemed really crooked to me from both the EADS and Boeing sides. So I hope we can just get on with it at this point and build some tankers. And if they were designed in the 70's who gives a rats butt, they'll be manufactured in the future, and that's good for a lot of people :)
Click to expand...

I adore Boeing, a groundbreaking company, with such amazing designs as the 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 777 what's not to like or even admire ? What I don't like is the ack of realism. Airbus had a much more modern airframe at a great price and would have profited the same way to US jobs. Let me remind you that Airbus supports 120,000 jobs in the US, and that the engines on the 330 MRTT would have been American, like the Avionics, equipment and so on. It's a globalized economy. Down the line it's not affecting me one bit, I'm a pilot, not a financier or a mechanic or engineer.
I just wished Boeing got its shoot together and would finally deliver the 787. I know my airline is going to sue Boeing for substantial damages over the 787 delays.
Maybe this contract will give them the fresh air needed to complete the 787. And this time Airbus will cry for government subsidies.
Bottom line, Boeing proposes an out-of-date airframe at pretty much the same price than a next-gen airframe. Kinda sad.
 
jynxyjoe said:
Well... it was going to be built in Alabama or something like that. Not overseas. I do like seeing Boeing win this one, however.
Click to expand...

Yes it was going to be built in Mobile, I remember a few years ago Mobile and Tampa where in a pee match to see who would get Airbus to come and build a plant there... I know I went through Mobile like a year ago by car and saw billboards for the new Tankers that where hopefully going to be built there. But I agree with everyone else, Made in America by an American company.
 
If anyone gets real bored they should re-read this whole controversy start to finish. Boeing did it's best to fleece the American taxpayer, then had the second bid artificially scuttled by the USAF (USAF trying to appear fair), then the third time Boeing gets it again. If Boeing hadn't tried robbing us the first time, they would have had this contract 8 years ago. Sometimes I think they're weapons division is lucky to be in business at all.
 
Pepe and jynxy for the win. What seems like "home town pride" is really just graft and corruption. The "nationality" of a corporation is really just public relations theory at this point, anyway.
 
Pépé le Pilot said:
...Bottom line, Boeing proposes an out-of-date airframe at pretty much the same price than a next-gen airframe. Kinda sad.
Click to expand...

I fly the current tanker, and I got to tell ya... I kind of like the "out of date" airframes. I don't know about the 767, but on the -135 we've got 7 ways to trim the airplane! 7!

Granted, I don't like the AGE of the tanker and you've got to wonder just how many years you can put on a machine before it falls apart... but at the same time, the 1940's and 1950's technology that went into this airframe is part of the reason that it's one of only 6 models of aircraft with over 50 years in continuous military service. They designed 'em back then with plenty of engineering fudge-factor built in just in case. It's actually kind of a nice thing.

(Kind of irrelevant to both the 76 and the 330, but hey :dunno: )
 
Nice to have someone on the "old" tanker chiming in ! Here's another thought : had the A330 MRTT won the contract, I guess it would've been easier for the pilots to transition to the civil A330, there are zillions of them flying all over the world, where the 767 is being phased out and is now flying charter or cargo in South America or developing countries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top