Tanker Competition Cancelled

[mzaharis]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...craps USAF Tanker Competition&channel=defensehttp://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/HALT09108.xml

 

[SpauldingSmails]

Looks like the 135s will be soldiering on. Hopefully the next time around our own Air Force will select an American built product.

 

[JungleJett]

Passing the buck while those that needed get screwed!Typical Washington horse $hit.

 

[erj-145mech]

Hopefully the next time around our own Air Force will select an American built product.

Yes, be good to see them built in Mobile, AL alright.

 

[Bobo135R]

Boeing

The KC-135 I'm flying right now seems to have done the job nicely these last 50+ years. What else does Boeing have to do to prove they have awesome product?

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

Maybe....quit screwing around???

cliff
YIP

 

[clr4theapch]

Good for Boeing.. maybe the next administration will be able to get rid of the special interst B S and bid this fairly...

 

[Occam's Razor]

"fairly"

(snicker)

It's "meet the Specs" vs. "change those specs to what we have!"

 

[dtfl]

"fairly"

(snicker)

It's "meet the Specs" vs. "change those specs to what we have!"

Well if you stick them side by side the A330 is a better product. A buddy whom working in acquisitions at the Pentagon told me he foresees the AF buying the A330, but building it at the Boeing plant or a plant built for the 330 in Seattle. Win win - the AF gets their choice of aircraft and Boeing doesn't lose jobs over it.

 

[Occam's Razor]

I agree. The EADS-NG aircraft met the specs. The Boeing team spent most of their time trying to convince the USAF to change their specs to something Boeing had tooled-and-ready.

A Boeing mucky-muck at NATCO for the B787 sim "party" gave a truly head-shaking account of how "those clowns over on that side of our house" tried to wag the dog.

 

[scottm]

Just saw this while watching the golf channel. A commercial for the tanker concerning keeping the jobs in Mobile.

http://www.keepourtanker.com

Now, back to Miss. Creamer

 

[FlyingHigh262]

make it another 50 years for the 135....yeah

 

[firstthird]

I agree. The EADS-NG aircraft met the specs. The Boeing team spent most of their time trying to convince the USAF to change their specs to something Boeing had tooled-and-ready.

Occam,
not sure you have been following this all that closely if that is what you think. there is really only one organization to blame for this mess and it is the U.S. Air Force procurement team.

The original 'lease deal' was the start of it. People are in jail because of that.
then the USAF issued the bid to replace their narrow body tanker.

EADS didn't like it so they complained (you see, they didn't have an appropriately sized tanker, only the 330). So, USAF decides to change the scoring criteria mid competition, effectively giving Airbus credit for bigger, more gas and more pax. none of which were parts of the original bid.

USAF picks airbus. Boeing complains. GAO investigates and finds, wait for it, USAF procurement screwed the pooch, again. the only thing they've done right so far is cancel the current abortion of a competition and leave it for the next admin. which should clean house in the procurement dept as a starting point.

So, I completely disagree that it is as simple as "EADS-NG aircraft met the specs." which specs, the original, the altered to match the airbus tanker specs or the not enough time for Boeing to gin up a 777 or 787 version to compete since the new specs are weighted towards a much larger aircraft than a 767.

Aviation Week has been covering this quite exhaustively. If you are relying on the AP or Reuters for this info, then you are only getting about 10% of the story and that mostly wrong.

 

[ableone]

There will be no tanker.

The feds just pumped $85 Billion into AIG, which would have funded the entire KC-45 build. Total turn around time from RFP until check cutting; 36 hours.

The USAF should have put all of their money into overvalued mortgage securities. If they had followed this wise course of action they would have a $85 Billion check in their hands right now. Tankers for everybody!

 

[skyward80]

"What does "adequately maintained" mean? I fly the -10 and our planes are barely airworthy. Mind you, the oldest model is a '79 tail.

At least I am getting good at running abnormal checklists.

Skyward80

 

[firstthird]

The $85 billion is a loan. AIG supposedly has 1.1 trillion in assets that they will try to spin off over the next few years. Problem was, you can't spin off that much financial/insurance stuff too quickly or the market for said financial/insurance stuff tanks even more than it has.

presumably the gov't will get most of their 85 billion back, maybe at a good return.

there will be a tanker. the air force needs to to the next bid correctly, asking for what they want and not changing the bid mid-stream to favor one or the other contractor (i.e. deciding that bigger is better after boeing had already committed to a 767 and airbus to an A330)

I feel your pain flying old equipment. P-3s date from mid 60s to early 80s and get/got used pretty hard (sea level bases, low over water flying = big time corrosion problems) not to mention complex turbo-prop assemblies with way more moving parts and potential problems than a typical jet or turbofan.

 

[ableone]

The $85 Billion Dollar AIG loan is not as big a deal as I first thought.

Now that the Government is going to be bailing out the whole financial industry to the tune of $800 Billion to $1.3 Trillion Dollars that AIG loan is pocket change.

Add that $1.3 Trillion (The entire US economy is only $13 Trillion by the way) to the off the books cost of the war and it is easy to see that the tanker is going to slip in importance.

Where or where are all these dollars going to come from?