Boeing Wins $35B Tanker contract

[Montgomery Scott]

The question is how long before a protest is filed from EADS.

http://www.king5.com/news/Boeing-wins-35-billion-Air-Force-tanker-contract-116848933.html

[Josiah Bartlett]

Good for them, the KC135 tanker my dad flew in the 1970's is still in active service!

[Lee Schierer]

I remember when the first KC-135's arrived at the airfield near our house. I got to tour one at an air show we went to on base. We used to see them all the time in Spain while we lived there 1960-63.

[Rich Stewart]

Don't want the tail of an Airbus snapping off when it's loaded with fuel.

[Norman Hitt]

Looks like they FINALLY got it right. It's about time.:rolleyes:


(from an old B 707 Pilot)

[Jim Barrett]

I am hopeful the decision will hold...nice to see some more jobs in the area and hopefully help to revitalize the real estate market. Would like to sell my home on Whidbey Island one of these days....don't want to "give it away"!

[Dave Mura]

Wow that's something! http://couponfit.com/img/beda24c1e1b46055dff2c39c98fd6fc1.gifhttp://couponfit.com/img/7d62a275027741d98073d42b8f735c68.gifhttp://couponfit.com/img/11d867796d85db8cad5280ac44cec7c1.gifhttp://couponfit.com/img/a57d48399922b03419153a9760c5ce53.gifhttp://couponfit.com/img/b90ba83119860d7f6a6dfaab9f2aa150.gif

[keith ouellette]

Being a Florida resident I think it stinks. Mostly because of this from 2010 washington post. Florida lost out on this.

Northrop's decision marked the latest twist in the nearly decade-long fight over one of the Pentagon's biggest and most controversial contracts and raised questions about the impact of procurement reforms proposed by the Obama administration.

In announcing its withdrawal, Northrop said that the government's requirements did not recognize the value of the larger refueling platform it had proposed and instead favored Boeing's proposal to build a smaller tanker using a prototype of its 767 aircraft.

[David Cefai]

Some things are really weird! I am European and would have preferred Airbus to win the contract. But how can any country with the capacity to do so contemplate building an essential defence component anywhere other than locally.

If Airbus got the contract then if the US got into a war that the EU disapproved of then the spare parts supply for the tankers could dry up.

[Norman Hitt]

Some things are really weird! I am European and would have preferred Airbus to win the contract. But how can any country with the capacity to do so contemplate building an essential defence component anywhere other than locally.

If Airbus got the contract then if the US got into a war that the EU disapproved of then the spare parts supply for the tankers could dry up.

"BINGO", you got it, but unfortunately, some folks only use their heads for a hat rack. It's a pity that we wasted ten years and untold millions of dollars to get to this point, BUT, they finally DID settle on the design parameters that the Air Force requested initially. They had asked for a tanker "Similar" in size to the KC 135 for it's replacement and will at a later date look to replace the larger KC 10s with a comparable sized tanker. To have replaced all the 135s with a large tanker would have been extremely costly over the years for the additional fuel alone, (like 24% more if I understood the press release right), and we all know that "known" fuel reserves are declining at the same time that world consumption is increasing and costs will continue to rise so it's not prudent to drive a Semi Truck to the Drug Store to pick up a bottle of aspirins.

The main thing to me though was why in the world would we want to hire a company from ANY other country to build something that they have no track history with, when one of our own domestic companies developed the original technology, AND have built more Tankers than any company in the world. It seems pretty obvious they know how to build them, or they sure wouldn't have lasted all these years. I guess I'm just getting too Old and Slow in the head to understand all these things.:D

[Chuck Wintle]

"BINGO", you got it, but unfortunately, some folks only use their heads for a hat rack. It's a pity that we wasted ten years and untold millions of dollars to get to this point, BUT, they finally DID settle on the design parameters that the Air Force requested initially. They had asked for a tanker "Similar" in size to the KC 135 for it's replacement and will at a later date look to replace the larger KC 10s with a comparable sized tanker. To have replaced all the 135s with a large tanker would have been extremely costly over the years for the additional fuel alone, (like 24% more if I understood the press release right), and we all know that "known" fuel reserves are declining at the same time that world consumption is increasing and costs will continue to rise so it's not prudent to drive a Semi Truck to the Drug Store to pick up a bottle of aspirins.

The main thing to me though was why in the world would we want to hire a company from ANY other country to build something that they have no track history with, when one of our own domestic companies developed the original technology, AND have built more Tankers than any company in the world. It seems pretty obvious they know how to build them, or they sure wouldn't have lasted all these years. I guess I'm just getting too Old and Slow in the head to understand all these things.:D

Norman,
Boeing certainly does have a track record of building fine aircraft and so does EADS in Europe. I wondered why Boeing was not awarded the contract in the first place as the profits and jobs stay in america. But corporations today are run by souless business people who only understand profits. The patriotic days are long gone in my opinion.

[David Cefai]

But corporations today are run by souless business people who only understand profits. The patriotic days are long gone in my opinion.

I don't think you can bang that drum in this situation. It's your government that was doing something silly!

[Greg Peterson]

Chuck is correct. Business has no loyalty or sense of patriotism. The only thing that matters to business is making money. The idea that lives and communities may be negatively impacted as a result of beefing up the bottom line is little more than an inconvenient thought.

When it comes to defense contracts it makes as much sense to outsource the supply chain as it does to have no bid, private contractors providing services for our service members over seas.

[Bryan Morgan]

Its good for the people keeping jobs and stuff but Boeing is one of our customers. Holy moly are they difficult to get anything done with. You know why planes cost so much? Because they have 35 people doing what could easily handled by 5, in half the time and 30 times more efficient. Simple things turn into monumental tasks that require all kinds of meetings and time wasting procedures.

[Chuck Wintle]

I don't think you can bang that drum in this situation. It's your government that was doing something silly!
my government does support the military-industrial complex very well. last year we bought 4 C-17 transport aircraft and m ore recently 65 J-35 JSF fighters. But we passed on the abrahms tank in favor of the the german leopard tank

[Chuck Wintle]

Its good for the people keeping jobs and stuff but Boeing is one of our customers. Holy moly are they difficult to get anything done with. You know why planes cost so much? Because they have 35 people doing what could easily handled by 5, in half the time and 30 times more efficient. Simple things turn into monumental tasks that require all kinds of meetings and time wasting procedures.

its like that in all industries now...aircraft...automobile and whatever.

[Peter Elliott]

I'm glad for Boeing.. but I am more happy the campaign ads are over for my morning commute on local DC news radio. Man, they both pushed hard but Boeing's was pretty strong..

[Chuck Wintle]

I'm glad for Boeing.. but I am more happy the campaign ads are over for my morning commute on local DC news radio. Man, they both pushed hard but Boeing's was pretty strong..

I wonder why Boeing was not selected in the first place.

[Pat Germain]

I wonder why Boeing was not selected in the first place.

Because Northrop Grumman offered a better product; more capable, more cost efficient and better for the Air Force and all aircraft they suport. The Air Force liked the NG aircraft and selected it; not politicians.

BTW, Boeing farms out much of its aircraft component manufacturing overseas. The whole "made in America" thing doesn't really apply. Both aircraft would have been converted in the US.

However, due to large and powerful forces, this contract was destined to be recompeted until the "right" company won.

[Chuck Wintle]

Because Northrop Grumman offered a better product; more capable, more cost efficient and better for the Air Force and all aircraft they suport. The Air Force liked the NG aircraft and selected it; not politicians.

BTW, Boeing farms out much of its aircraft component manufacturing overseas. The whole "made in America" thing doesn't really apply. Both aircraft would have been converted in the US.

However, due to large and powerful forces, this contract was destined to be recompeted until the "right" company won.

I suppose the perception "made in America" by Americans makes for a lot of political weight. if people knew the truth about sourcing of parts they would be shocked. Boeing makes a lot of components and parts in china for example.

[Montgomery Scott]

The reality is Airbus should never have been selected in the first place. The RFP requested a replacement for the 136 foot long KC-135. The 767 is 160 ft long and the A330 is 193 feet long. If the AF had requested a large size aircraft Boeing could have offered the 777 that is far superior to the A330.

The Airbus award was shot down by the GAO because of a flawed selection process. http://www.forbes.com/2008/06/18/boeing-northrop-gao-biz-wash-cx_bc_0618boeing.html

The Boeing selection will create more jobs in the US than the Airbus plane. 100% of the airframe engineering is done in the US. 0% for the Airbus. The forward section of the 767, tail section, and wings are made in the US. The fuselage panels are made in Japan and assembled in the US. The Airbus airframe is entirely made and assembled in Europe.

The whole argument of how the AF will suffer if a Boeing plane is selected is without merit. Consider that the AF seems to be doing well enough with 40 year old planes based on a 55 year old design. The Airbus design is 20 years old and the Boeing is 30 years old. The Airbus is not cutting edge technology by any stretch. There are some technical improvements over the 767, but not enough to outweigh the operational costs.

Here are some links for analysis better than what the tin foil hat crowd offers.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/122942/looking-behind-the-usaf-tanker-choice.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/news/2011/03/01/analysis-why-boeing-won-air-force-tanker.html

[Pat Germain]

Here are some links for analysis better than what the tin foil hat crowd offers.


This comment suggests the Air Force were also wearing tin hats when they selected the NG aircraft.

[Montgomery Scott]

Considering the GAO found significant errors in the contract award I'd say that's a fair conclusion.

[Chuck Wintle]

Montgomery,
I think there is a lot of wheeling and dealing behind closed doors for contracts such as these and the "irregularities" found made for a way out for airbus so they don't lose face. Don't worry the US will be committed to buy some other military hardware for europe to compensate. maybe the US Marines will purchase the French version of the Humvee...?

[Montgomery Scott]

Please share the source for this conclusion.

[Chuck Wintle]

Please share the source for this conclusion.

it's hypothetical.