JFReservist
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2005
- Posts
- 203
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
The French are coming!!!
- Thread starter JFReservist
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
embpic1
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 14, 2005
- Posts
- 474
I am so F&#ing pissed I could just s#*t!!!
This is the most absurd thing I could ever imagine our country doing. Our economy is in the toilet and they are going to send more money overseas! More jobs for the French.
Our military is going to learn a hard lesson in several years. We have KC-135s and B-52s that are almost 50 years old that are still providing great service to our country. Fifty years from now those Airbus POS airframes will have long become Coke cans.
This is the most absurd thing I could ever imagine our country doing. Our economy is in the toilet and they are going to send more money overseas! More jobs for the French.
Our military is going to learn a hard lesson in several years. We have KC-135s and B-52s that are almost 50 years old that are still providing great service to our country. Fifty years from now those Airbus POS airframes will have long become Coke cans.
bagasticks
fist fornicator
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Posts
- 190
your right on the money bro. . . alot of us in the gas-wagon community seen it coming to. . Boeing raw-dogged the pooch with all that bafoonery a couple years ago. . .That combined with Airbus not dragging their feet at all .
FlickerFade
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2005
- Posts
- 239
Air Force Buys French Tanker
Northrop Grumman and EADS have somehow managed to defeat heavy-favorite Boeing in the battle to replace the Air Force's aging fleet of aerial refueling tankers. The initial contract for 80 aircraft is valued at $40 billion, and the service has plans to purchase as many as 100 more at an as yet undetermined cost.
The Northrop KC-30, which is based on the EADS Airbus A-330 passenger jet, had been considered the more capable aircraft. It's bigger, which means it can carry 20 percent more fuel, 20 percent more passengers, and 30 percent more cargo. It can also carry 45,000 pounds more fuel than Boeing's KC-767. But Boeing had pitched the smaller size of the 767 as a feature, rather than a handicap. However, the 767 is at the end of its commercial life. The military would have been the only customer for the airplane had Boeing won the contract, raising concerns about maintenance costs.
The KC-30 will be assembled in Mobile, Alabama, but much of the work will be done in Airbus's facility in Toulouse, France. There had been doubts as to whether the Air Force, and Congress, would award such a massive contract to a French firm, but a thaw in relations following the election of Nicolas Sarkozy may have eased concerns. Also Northrop claims that its aircraft will create 25,000 American jobs.
The Air Force's tanker acquisition program first received national attention in 2001, when Senator John McCain called into question a no-bid contract that would have seen the service lease, rather than buy, 100 tankers from Boeing. Upon further investigation, it became clear that Boeing had offered illegal inducements to Air Force officials in exchange for the contract. The ensuing scandal led to jail sentences for two Boeing officials, including the firm's CFO.
McCain has repeatedly noted his role in exposing the corrupt deal during this year's presidential election.
Northrop Grumman and EADS have somehow managed to defeat heavy-favorite Boeing in the battle to replace the Air Force's aging fleet of aerial refueling tankers. The initial contract for 80 aircraft is valued at $40 billion, and the service has plans to purchase as many as 100 more at an as yet undetermined cost.
The Northrop KC-30, which is based on the EADS Airbus A-330 passenger jet, had been considered the more capable aircraft. It's bigger, which means it can carry 20 percent more fuel, 20 percent more passengers, and 30 percent more cargo. It can also carry 45,000 pounds more fuel than Boeing's KC-767. But Boeing had pitched the smaller size of the 767 as a feature, rather than a handicap. However, the 767 is at the end of its commercial life. The military would have been the only customer for the airplane had Boeing won the contract, raising concerns about maintenance costs.
The KC-30 will be assembled in Mobile, Alabama, but much of the work will be done in Airbus's facility in Toulouse, France. There had been doubts as to whether the Air Force, and Congress, would award such a massive contract to a French firm, but a thaw in relations following the election of Nicolas Sarkozy may have eased concerns. Also Northrop claims that its aircraft will create 25,000 American jobs.
The Air Force's tanker acquisition program first received national attention in 2001, when Senator John McCain called into question a no-bid contract that would have seen the service lease, rather than buy, 100 tankers from Boeing. Upon further investigation, it became clear that Boeing had offered illegal inducements to Air Force officials in exchange for the contract. The ensuing scandal led to jail sentences for two Boeing officials, including the firm's CFO.
McCain has repeatedly noted his role in exposing the corrupt deal during this year's presidential election.
rayford steele
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2006
- Posts
- 155
The A300 was launched in 1972 with many still flying. The A320 has been flying since 1988. I think the Airbus will be flying for a longtime to come.
I think it really sucks that Boeing was not selected. It's too bad they didn't try to convert the 777 to a tanker. Boeing blew it.
Northrop, EADS Win $35B Air Force Deal
Northrop, EADS Win $35B Air Force Deal
By JOELLE TESSLER,
AP
Posted: 2008-02-29 20:32:19
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Air Force on Friday awarded Northrop Grumman Corp. and a European partner a $35 billion contract to build airborne refueling planes, delivering a major blow to Boeing Co.
The selection of Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., the maker of Airbus planes, surprised industry and elected officials. Air Force officials said the larger size of the Northrop-EADS aircraft helped tip the balance in its favor.
Chicago-based Boeing, which has been supplying refueling tankers to the Air Force for nearly 50 years and had been widely expected to hang onto that monopoly, could protest the decision, though the company said no decision has been made.
The contract to build up to 179 aircraft - the first of three awards worth up to $100 billion over 30 years - opens up a huge new opportunity for Northrop Grumman.
"They don't come along at this scale very often," Northrop Grumman Chairman and CEO Ronald Sugar said. "We do see this as being a very important component of our business for many years to come."
The deal also positions EADS to break into the U.S. military market.
In after-hours trading, shares of Northrop initially surged more than 5 percent before retreating to $78.83, an increase of 22 cents. Boeing's stock price fell $2.64 to $80.15.
The Northrop-EADS refueling tanker, the KC-45A, "will revolutionize our ability to employ tankers and will ensure the Air Force's future ability to provide our nation with truly global vigilance, reach, and power," Air Force Gen. Duncan J. McNabb said in a statement.
Air Force officials offered few details about why they choose the Northrop-EADS team over Boeing since they have yet to debrief the two companies. But Air Force Gen. Arthur Lichte said the larger size was key. "More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload," he said.
"It will be very hard for Boeing to overturn this decision because the Northrop plane seemed markedly superior" in the eyes of the Air Force, said Loren Thompson, a defense industry analyst with Lexington Institute, a policy think tank. And as the winners of the first award, EADS and Northrop are in a strong position to win two follow-on deals to build hundreds of more planes.
Boeing spokesman Jim Condelles said the company won't make a decision about appealing the award until it is briefed by Air Force officials. Boeing believes it offered the best value and lowest risk, he said.
Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. analyst Troy Lahr said in a research note it was surprising the Northrop-EADS team won given the estimated $35 million per-plane savings offered by Boeing. Lahr estimated the Boeing aircraft would have cost $125 million apiece. "It appears the (Air Force) chose capabilities over cost," Lahr said.
Military officials say the Air Force is long overdue to replace its air-to-air refueling tankers, which allow fighter jets and other aircraft to refuel without landing. The service currently flies 531 Eisenhower-era tankers and another 59 tankers built in the 1980s by McDonnell Douglas, now part of Boeing.
But the new contract has emerged as a major test for the Air Force, which is trying to rebuild a tattered reputation after a procurement scandal in 2003 sent a top Air Force acquisition official to prison for conflict of interest and led to the collapse of an earlier tanker contract with Boeing.
The tanker deal is also certain to become a flashpoint in a heated debate over the military's use of foreign contractors since Boeing painted the competition as a fight between an American company and its European rival. Lawmakers whose districts stood to gain jobs from a Boeing win were pressing this point on Friday.
"We should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers," said Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., who represents the district in Wichita where Boeing would have done much of the tanker work.
In Everett, Wash., a few dozen Boeing workers protested outside a Machinists Union hall holding up signs saying "American workers equal best tankers," and "Our military deserves the best."
The EADS/Northrop Grumman team plans to perform its final assembly work in Mobile, Ala., although the underlying plane would mostly be built in Europe. And it would use General Electric engines built in North Carolina and Ohio. Northrop Grumman, which is based in Los Angeles, estimates a Northrop/EADS win would produce 2,000 new jobs in Mobile and support 25,000 jobs at suppliers nationwide.
"I've never seen anything excite the people of Mobile like this competition," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said. "We're talking about billions of dollars over many years so this is just a huge announcement."
Associated Press Writers Ben Evans, Matthew Daly and Sam Hananel in Washington contributed to this report.
Northrop, EADS Win $35B Air Force Deal
By JOELLE TESSLER,
AP
Posted: 2008-02-29 20:32:19
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Air Force on Friday awarded Northrop Grumman Corp. and a European partner a $35 billion contract to build airborne refueling planes, delivering a major blow to Boeing Co.
The selection of Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., the maker of Airbus planes, surprised industry and elected officials. Air Force officials said the larger size of the Northrop-EADS aircraft helped tip the balance in its favor.
Chicago-based Boeing, which has been supplying refueling tankers to the Air Force for nearly 50 years and had been widely expected to hang onto that monopoly, could protest the decision, though the company said no decision has been made.
The contract to build up to 179 aircraft - the first of three awards worth up to $100 billion over 30 years - opens up a huge new opportunity for Northrop Grumman.
"They don't come along at this scale very often," Northrop Grumman Chairman and CEO Ronald Sugar said. "We do see this as being a very important component of our business for many years to come."
The deal also positions EADS to break into the U.S. military market.
In after-hours trading, shares of Northrop initially surged more than 5 percent before retreating to $78.83, an increase of 22 cents. Boeing's stock price fell $2.64 to $80.15.
The Northrop-EADS refueling tanker, the KC-45A, "will revolutionize our ability to employ tankers and will ensure the Air Force's future ability to provide our nation with truly global vigilance, reach, and power," Air Force Gen. Duncan J. McNabb said in a statement.
Air Force officials offered few details about why they choose the Northrop-EADS team over Boeing since they have yet to debrief the two companies. But Air Force Gen. Arthur Lichte said the larger size was key. "More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload," he said.
"It will be very hard for Boeing to overturn this decision because the Northrop plane seemed markedly superior" in the eyes of the Air Force, said Loren Thompson, a defense industry analyst with Lexington Institute, a policy think tank. And as the winners of the first award, EADS and Northrop are in a strong position to win two follow-on deals to build hundreds of more planes.
Boeing spokesman Jim Condelles said the company won't make a decision about appealing the award until it is briefed by Air Force officials. Boeing believes it offered the best value and lowest risk, he said.
Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. analyst Troy Lahr said in a research note it was surprising the Northrop-EADS team won given the estimated $35 million per-plane savings offered by Boeing. Lahr estimated the Boeing aircraft would have cost $125 million apiece. "It appears the (Air Force) chose capabilities over cost," Lahr said.
Military officials say the Air Force is long overdue to replace its air-to-air refueling tankers, which allow fighter jets and other aircraft to refuel without landing. The service currently flies 531 Eisenhower-era tankers and another 59 tankers built in the 1980s by McDonnell Douglas, now part of Boeing.
But the new contract has emerged as a major test for the Air Force, which is trying to rebuild a tattered reputation after a procurement scandal in 2003 sent a top Air Force acquisition official to prison for conflict of interest and led to the collapse of an earlier tanker contract with Boeing.
The tanker deal is also certain to become a flashpoint in a heated debate over the military's use of foreign contractors since Boeing painted the competition as a fight between an American company and its European rival. Lawmakers whose districts stood to gain jobs from a Boeing win were pressing this point on Friday.
"We should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers," said Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., who represents the district in Wichita where Boeing would have done much of the tanker work.
In Everett, Wash., a few dozen Boeing workers protested outside a Machinists Union hall holding up signs saying "American workers equal best tankers," and "Our military deserves the best."
The EADS/Northrop Grumman team plans to perform its final assembly work in Mobile, Ala., although the underlying plane would mostly be built in Europe. And it would use General Electric engines built in North Carolina and Ohio. Northrop Grumman, which is based in Los Angeles, estimates a Northrop/EADS win would produce 2,000 new jobs in Mobile and support 25,000 jobs at suppliers nationwide.
"I've never seen anything excite the people of Mobile like this competition," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said. "We're talking about billions of dollars over many years so this is just a huge announcement."
Associated Press Writers Ben Evans, Matthew Daly and Sam Hananel in Washington contributed to this report.
HoursHore
Medieval Warrior
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2002
- Posts
- 558
WNC Flyer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Posts
- 121
Kind of random thought for this thread, but you're right. The USAF is really putting the pinch on fuel use, all the way down to the training lines.
embpic1
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 14, 2005
- Posts
- 474
mzaharis
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Posts
- 541
In his defense, I will point out that the original contract he objected to was so crooked, two Boeing executives went to jail (Darleen Druyun and Michael Sears).
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1004/100104g1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_M._Sears
AirBadger
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Posts
- 2,108
Doesn't most of the blame for this lie on Boeing? I'm not an expert on this issue, but between the scandal and the fact that apparently the A330 has better specs, isn't it Boeing that failed to produce a better product? I might be outraged if the tables were turned and Boeing made a better product but EADS was chosen out of political motivation, but that doesn't really seem to be the case here.
KCPilot
Mouse and Keyboard Pilot
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2005
- Posts
- 332
propsarebest
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2004
- Posts
- 1,559
Boeing got what is deserved
First, I am not in the military and have no expertise regarding refueling operations. Having said that, on the surface of things, it seems that EADS/NG simply offered a much better product than Boeing. I think the blame falls squarely on Boeing's shoulder for losing this deal. Besides, what product has Boeing defense designed and delivered in the last 20 years that has not been either bought through an acquisition or a rehash of an old, existing legacy airframe? Every new, white board product they have tried to design in the aircraft area has lost to its competitors. Boeing needs to get its sh*#% together when it comes to its defense division, particularly when it comes to aircraft development.
Secondly, EADS is not a French company. It is a multinational company. As far as I know the tail of the A330 is built in Spain, the wings in the U.K., the fuselage in Germany, engines are U.S and final assembly will be in the U.S, with major subsystems build and delivery by NG. So on the whole, this cannot be a bad thing for the American worker. In fact, while we might lose some aviation skills from the people in the 767 line, a whole new generation of skilled aviation workers will be trained in the south. Bad for the people on Boeing's 767 line? Absolutely, but the 767 has been a dying program for a lot of years now. I do feel bad for them.
Finally, why are people complaining that we are buying a foreign product for our military? Correct me if I am wrong, but haven't European countries been buying American military hardware worth many, many billions of dollars for a lot of years now? And why did they do it? Probably because the products they bought were superior to the home grown option. Shouldn't the men and woman serving in our military be given the same option?
First, I am not in the military and have no expertise regarding refueling operations. Having said that, on the surface of things, it seems that EADS/NG simply offered a much better product than Boeing. I think the blame falls squarely on Boeing's shoulder for losing this deal. Besides, what product has Boeing defense designed and delivered in the last 20 years that has not been either bought through an acquisition or a rehash of an old, existing legacy airframe? Every new, white board product they have tried to design in the aircraft area has lost to its competitors. Boeing needs to get its sh*#% together when it comes to its defense division, particularly when it comes to aircraft development.
Secondly, EADS is not a French company. It is a multinational company. As far as I know the tail of the A330 is built in Spain, the wings in the U.K., the fuselage in Germany, engines are U.S and final assembly will be in the U.S, with major subsystems build and delivery by NG. So on the whole, this cannot be a bad thing for the American worker. In fact, while we might lose some aviation skills from the people in the 767 line, a whole new generation of skilled aviation workers will be trained in the south. Bad for the people on Boeing's 767 line? Absolutely, but the 767 has been a dying program for a lot of years now. I do feel bad for them.
Finally, why are people complaining that we are buying a foreign product for our military? Correct me if I am wrong, but haven't European countries been buying American military hardware worth many, many billions of dollars for a lot of years now? And why did they do it? Probably because the products they bought were superior to the home grown option. Shouldn't the men and woman serving in our military be given the same option?
Last edited:
JFReservist
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2005
- Posts
- 203
The real reason
The A330 won in the end because of the Air Force's inability to recapitalize their strategic airlift capability. The A330 can haul crap, oh and by the way, may pass gas every now and then - like the ten.
This is seemingly a great idea, until you study the need for AR. Bigger is not better. We don't have the infrastructure at many Tanker bases or FOBs to support the size of the A330 as a -135 replacement. A replacement for the ten, maybe, but not for the 530 kc-135s that are getting burned every day.
Oh, and to say that the 330 is a better platform than the 767 is asinine. Can anyone tell me the last time a 330 actually gave an offload of fuel?
The sound of crickets is deafening.
The A330 won in the end because of the Air Force's inability to recapitalize their strategic airlift capability. The A330 can haul crap, oh and by the way, may pass gas every now and then - like the ten.
This is seemingly a great idea, until you study the need for AR. Bigger is not better. We don't have the infrastructure at many Tanker bases or FOBs to support the size of the A330 as a -135 replacement. A replacement for the ten, maybe, but not for the 530 kc-135s that are getting burned every day.
Oh, and to say that the 330 is a better platform than the 767 is asinine. Can anyone tell me the last time a 330 actually gave an offload of fuel?
The sound of crickets is deafening.
tankerswede
and don't call me Shirley
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Posts
- 51
Define capability...
Correct me if I'm wrong (like I have to ask), but didn't we see something like this with the C-17 when the Starlizard was retired? It can carry more stuff, but half the stuff needs to go this way and the other half needs to go that way - we now need to have two different tails or find a void in the space-time continuum.
We started picking up the AE mission in the -135 about the time the 141s started going away and that's the reason that was given at the time. I will say that it was sourced through the deployed crew dog rumor mill and not through anything official.
Still, will we potentially see some of the same thing with one big tanker instead of two smaller ones?
Correct me if I'm wrong (like I have to ask), but didn't we see something like this with the C-17 when the Starlizard was retired? It can carry more stuff, but half the stuff needs to go this way and the other half needs to go that way - we now need to have two different tails or find a void in the space-time continuum.
We started picking up the AE mission in the -135 about the time the 141s started going away and that's the reason that was given at the time. I will say that it was sourced through the deployed crew dog rumor mill and not through anything official.
Still, will we potentially see some of the same thing with one big tanker instead of two smaller ones?
mzaharis
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Posts
- 541
My understanding is that both offers were for the same number of tankers - 179. Boeing, argued, however, that since the 330 took up more ramp space than the 767, it would be harder to deploy the same number of tankers. Boeing also made the argument that, while the 330 could carry more fuel, and do so more with lower operating costs "per gallon", it had cheaper operating costs "per boom".
Apparently, the evaluators didn't see those considerations as primary. You're in a much better position than I am to decide if that's correct.
Last edited:
bagasticks
fist fornicator
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Posts
- 190
You are spot on. .the original deal was screen doors for submarines. . This was boeing's deal to screw up. . and that, they did. .
erj-145mech
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2002
- Posts
- 1,071
And until the KC-135 contract was let, a 707 hadn't either, so that argument goes out the window.
No USAF KC-767 has run a drop of JP down a boom either!
But for sure, Boeings past contract history, with the Government, had an impact on the decision. When senior management goes to jail over a business deal, thats not a good thing. A Government contract PCO is not going to hang his sierra over the fence over a multi billion dollar deal.
mzaharis
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Posts
- 541
Here are some press conference comments from Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne, Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Duncan McNabb, Assistant Secretary of Defense Sue Payton, and Air Mobility Commander Gen. Arthur Lichte.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/2008/03/pentagon-on-kcx-its-about-the.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/2008/03/pentagon-on-kcx-its-about-the.html
SDF2BUF2MCO
Bird Nerd
- Joined
- May 13, 2002
- Posts
- 7,673
Welcome to the "Global Economy". The next 20 years will be enlightening to say the least - may be a good thing for commerce and government but not the average Joe.
AvroGuy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2005
- Posts
- 297
It is not the first time that the US has bought a foreign airplane.. BaE Hawk, aka T-45, and the English Electic Canbera Bomber, aka B-57. The B-57 was actually built under license though and both were British products if that makes you feel better. I can't think of anything else off of the top of my head.
Of course the 330 is a better platform than the 767; it's a generation newer. Likewise the 777 and 787 are both better than the 330. Here's another twist: as several have said, one size doesn't fit all. Why wasn't the contract for multiple aircraft of different sizes, say 30 767s and 100 737s?
tankerswede
and don't call me Shirley
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Posts
- 51
flyguy75000
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2005
- Posts
- 283
bagasticks
fist fornicator
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Posts
- 190
Let us not forget the HAWKER Harrier GR-1. . . the original lawn dart. . .
tankerswede
and don't call me Shirley
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Posts
- 51
OK, but at least it's British. I can take a British airplane. They have always been one of our best allies and have proven very grateful for what the U.S. has done for them. The French, on the other hand...
uke:OK, but at least it's British. I can take a British airplane. They have always been one of our best allies and have proven very grateful for what the U.S. has done for them. The French, on the other hand...
I'm not fan of the french and would rather see the new tanker come from boeing (however I agree like some said that the french plane is better than boeing's 767 offering) but you guys seem to forget that without the help of the french we would have never won our independence in the first place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution
Share this page
Latest posts
-
Alert CubCrafters Carbon Cub EX crash - 2 fatal (N126C)
- Latest: Cactus Charlie
-
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
