Boeings Next Gen Tanker(The Winner)

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

[quote]Bipartisan Senate Letter Urges KC-X Investigation

Seven senators from both parties called on the Pentagon

[The Ruptured Duck]

Bob Hoover was shot down in a spitfire off the southern french coast

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

[quote]Boeing to revise bid for US military tanker deal

WASHINGTON

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

Murray, Cantwell: Tanker contract salvation for American jobs

Posted by Kyung M. Song

WASHINGTON -- When the U.S. Air Force at last reveals the winner of a $40 billion contract for aerial refueling tankers, it won't merely mark a turning point in one of the more tortuous chapters in Pentagon procurement history.

It also would help determine the fate of the American economy, its industrial base and national security.

That's according to a quintet of senators from three states who are pushing hard for a victory by Boeing.

During a press conference at the U.S. Capitol on Thursday, Sen. Patty Murray led an argument by a bipartisan group of lawmakers that awarding the tanker deal to the European parent of Airbus would deprive Americans of much-needed jobs.

Boeing has claimed that if the tankers are built with a military version of its 767 jetliner, it would support 50,000 U.S. jobs, including 11,000 in Washington state. Airbus parent EADS counters that a win for the larger Airbus A330 tanker would support 48,000 American jobs. Airbus plans to assemble the tankers in Mobile, Ala., with component parts made in Europe.

"If we are going to win the future, we are going to need to win this contract," Murray said. "We are doing this to remind the administration and the country what's at stake."

Underscoring that message, the press conference room was festooned with signs proclaiming "American jobs on the line" and "Support American aerospace."

Also appearing at the event were Sens. Maria Cantwell of Washington and Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran, both Republicans of Kansas, a major Boeing manufacturing center. A fifth senator, Debbie Stabenow, is from Michigan, where Boeing currently employs 22 people but hopes to gain 450 more jobs with a tanker contract.

The Air Force has been trying for a decade to replace its aging KC-135 refueling aircraft. Its 2001 decision to lease 100 tankers from Boeing was scotched after revelations that the company's chief financial officer offered jobs to a Pentagon acquisitions officer and her family. A subsequent tanker award to Northrop-EADS was successfully challenged by Boeing on grounds that the competition was flawed.

Further roiling the process, the World Trade Organization has recently ruled that Airbus -- and to a lesser degree, Boeing -- has benefited from billions of dollars in illegal government subsidies. Boeing partisans on Capitol Hill have argued for penalizing EADS, something the Pentagon has refused repeatedly.

The decision for this third round is expected to hinge on price. Aerospace analysts have speculated that EADS likely would prevail on that score. The Air Force is expected to name the winner shortly.

Asked if all the political interference might further delay the Air Force from upgrading its equipment, Moran said that's why the Pentagon must ensure that its latest choice of a winner "has to be absolutely, above-board correct."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/p ... njobs.html

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

[quote]Pro-Boeing lawmakers tie tanker decision to job-creation goals

By John T. Bennett - 02/17/11 04:25 PM ET

A Boeing win "would be a big step forward in our efforts to win the future,

[The Ruptured Duck]

Damn strait it went to Boeing. 

[BrandonF]

[quote]Boeing to Build U.S. Air Force Tankers


Story by Marc Selinger

[color=#000000]The U.S. Air Force announced Thursday that it has selected Boeing

[expat]

Boeing will build the NewGen Tanker with a low-risk approach. It will use a trained and experienced U.S..

Low risk, read "cheap" and as for "trained", it is well known in the industry what sort of people Boeing employ. I feel rather sorry for the USAF, if they have to deal with the same product standard that Boeing are delivering to customers, they are screwed. We are giving back 4 aircraft to the leasing agent due to "quality problems"

Boeing has built and supported tankers for more than 60 years, and company employees said they are rolling up their sleeves to begin work on this newest tanker right away.

OK, because we have always done it, we should always.......At the end of the day, it was a huge waist of money to make the the bidding look legitimate as Boeing was always going to get the contract. It will cost even more now too as the aircraft will be over budget and late because they always are especially if it is a military contract.

Matt

[C]

It was always going to eventually go to Boeing. A telling quote I saw from a US analyst last night went along the lines that a major consideration in awarding the contract to Boeing is that EADS do not get a plant in the USA which they could later use to build civil aircraft in competition with Boeing.

As for Boeing being the low risk approach, well, just don't ask the Italians about there KC-767! As for experience, the A330 wasn't Airbus' first tanker, and the "corporate knowledge" of AAR in the companies that went to make up Airbus, and of course the AAR specialist companies have been around just as long as their US counterparts.

Oh well, I look forward to USAF tanker mates being envious for once...

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

[quote]Boeing Wins Restaged U.S. Air Force KC-X Tanker

Feb 25, 2011

By Graham Warwick graham_warwick@aviationweek.com
Washington

Overturning its previous selection, the U.S. Air Force has selected Boeing to supply its KC-X replacement aerial-refueling tanker. The company has been awarded a $3.5 billion fixed-price incentive contract for development and delivery of the first 18 of a planned 179 767-based NewGen tankers to replace U.S. Air Force Boeing KC-135s.

EADS North America, with Northrop Grumman as prime contractor, won the first KC-X competition in February 2008 with the KC-45A, based on the Airbus A330-200 and similar to the KC-30 multi-role tanker/transport under development for Australia. The program was halted in September 2008 after a Boeing contract protest was upheld.

The Air Force restarted the KC-X competition in July 2010, issuing a new request for proposals (RFP) that simplified the requirements, clarified the selection criteria and reduced the financial risks to the winner. The changes were made in a bid to prevent the protests that derailed the first competition.

Boeing revised its approach after losing the first competition, dropping plans to develop an aircraft combining elements of several different 767 models and basing its

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

[quote]Boeing The Clear Winner Of KC-X: Pentagon

Feb 25, 2011

By Graham Warwick

Additional capabilities beyond the mandatory requirements were not a factor in the U.S. Air Force

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

[quote]What The Boeing Tanker Win Means

Mar 1, 2011

By Amy Butler

The question sweeping the U.S. defense establishment is: How low did Boeing go?

Nearly three years after the U.S. Air Force

[C]

A loss for Boeing would have been a blow, ending its five-decade monopoly on the U.S. refueling business

They keep on referring to this "50 year monopoly" Boeing has had in producing tankers for the USAF (the above article refers to the US refuelling business, which is even more tenuous - KC-130 etc...). Am I missing something, or did they not lose the competition eventually won by the USAF's most versatile tanker, the KC-10 (apparently with a 747 based design)!

Yeah, ok, in course Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas, but to say they've had a 50 year monopoly is pushing the truth boat out a bit far!

[expat]

A loss for Boeing would have been a blow, ending its five-decade monopoly on the U.S. refueling business

They keep on referring to this "50 year monopoly" Boeing has had in producing tankers for the USAF (the above article refers to the US refuelling business, which is even more tenuous - KC-130 etc...). Am I missing something, or did they not lose the competition eventually won by the USAF's most versatile tanker, the KC-10 (apparently with a 747 based design)!

Yeah, ok, in course Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas, but to say they've had a 50 year monopoly is pushing the truth boat out a bit far!

Boeing are desperate to win because they have a white elephant that will need a customer. By that I mean the 787. As they can't get certification for the aircraft due to static discharges in the fuel tanks (due to them being made of carbon....what do Airbus use and why ) they are trying to get the FAA to rewrite the rules so that an acceptable amount of static discharging can be allowed in the tanks as opposed to the zero limit we have now. Maybe TWA can advise on an acceptable limit!! If the 787 fails and customers start to with draw, who do you think will end up with a nice fleet of 787's. After all military aircraft do not require certification...........It would make a great tanker, range and capacity....

Matt

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

A loss for Boeing would have been a blow, ending its five-decade monopoly on the U.S. refueling business

They keep on referring to this "50 year monopoly" Boeing has had in producing tankers for the USAF (the above article refers to the US refuelling business, which is even more tenuous - KC-130 etc...). Am I missing something, or did they not lose the competition eventually won by the USAF's most versatile tanker, the KC-10 (apparently with a 747 based design)!

Yeah, ok, in course Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas, but to say they've had a 50 year monopoly is pushing the truth boat out a bit far!

Yes they did loose out to the DC-10 with the KC-747, but as far as Boeing History in the tanker it goes with:
KB-29(late 40's),KB-50(1947), KC-97(1950), KC-135(1954-1965), KC-33(747 in 70's), KC-767(2005)