Boeing Awarded AF Tanker Contract
 

Air Force to award $35 billion tanker contract - Yahoo! Finance

Air Force to award $35 billion tanker contract

Air Force to announce winner of $35 billion tanker contract between Boeing and EADS

Donna Cassata and Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press, On Thursday February 24, 2011, 2:10 pm
WASHINGTON (AP) -- After a decade of delays and embarrassing missteps, the Air Force is poised to award one of the biggest contracts in military history -- a $35 billion deal to build nearly 200 giant airborne refueling tankers -- to either Chicago-based Boeing Co. or European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company.
The decision will be announced at the Pentagon after the financial markets close on Thursday and it is certain to set off celebrations in the states where the tanker will be manufactured.
If Boeing wins, production would occur in Everett, Wash., Wichita, Kan., and several other states. If EADS wins, the tanker would be assembled in Mobile, Ala., at a long-shuttered military base. The two companies say either way, some 50,000 jobs would be created in a recession-weary nation.
The losing states -- and their lawmakers -- will weigh any challenge to the decision.
Replacing the 1950s-era KC-135 planes -- the equivalent of a flying gas station -- is crucial for the military. Pilots who weren't even born when the last aircraft was delivered in 1965 are operating air tankers that the Pentagon is struggling to keep in flying shape.
The refueling tankers allow jet fighters, supply planes and other aircraft to cover long distances, critical with fewer overseas bases and operations far from the United States in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
The $35 billion contract calls for producing 179 new tankers. Boeing would base the tanker on its 767 aircraft while EADS would use the Airbus A330 built in Europe as its model.
The amount could end up being a first installment on a $100 billion deal if the Air Force decides to purchase more aircraft.
Through the years, the Air Force's efforts to award the contract have been undone by Pentagon bungling and the criminal conviction of a top Defense Department official.
Initially, the Air Force planned to lease and buy Boeing planes to serve as tankers, but that fell through. The Air Force later awarded a contract to Northrop and EADS, but in 2008 the Government Accountability Office upheld Boeing's protest of the contract.
The GAO said it found "a number of significant errors" in the Air Force's decision, including its failure to fairly judge the relative merits of each proposal.
The Air Force reopened the bidding in 2010 only to be embarrassed again as it mistakenly gave Boeing and EADS sensitive information that contained each other's confidential bids.
The contract has generated some of the fiercest and costliest lobbying in Washington. The two companies have spent millions on advertising, including radio and subway ads in the nation's capital, and hired dozens of lobbyists.
In the past year, Boeing has spent $5 million on print advertising to promote its version of the tanker while EADS has shelled out $1.7 million to boost its prototype, according to Evan Tracey, president of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which typically monitors advertising for political campaigns.

Hopefully this time the decision sticks, whatever it is. Of course bigger news would have been if congress actually pass a budget :rolleyes:

KC

I would like the budget passed first too. To the actual award, I would assume this one will stick BUT the loser will no go quietly, so expect some lawsuits to follow. I don't think the AF really has a plan for either one, esp not the 'bus since it won't fit into -135 hangars. The perfect solution is 200 Boeings to replace as many -135's as possible and 60 'bus types to replace the KC-10. Send all the "retired" -135's to the Guard so that each Guard (or AFRES) wing has at least 16 PAA (or 12 PAA with 4 "can birds" on station). That will never happen though. It'll be fun to see who wins and what the AF plans on doing but I also don't see it impacting my life (or anyone else's) in the next 24 months, I could very well be wrong on this one...

Even if the loser does walk away quietly, I will be surprised if capitol hill actually funds the new tanker with the federal budget situation.

I remember hearing the lineup of who got the new tanker first a couple years ago. There were actually a couple reserve units in the top 5, if memory serves me correct. Something like McConnell, MacDill, Grissom, Grand Forks.

I will be surprised if we replace every 135, tail for tail.

KC

It's going to be Boeing methinks. EADS' partner bailed a long time ago, which is rather ominous.

It did go to Boeing. Just heard it on NPR radio news. Now if I can just get on the engineering staff making those airplanes...

Boeing will outsource all the parts and it will never be built!:)

Otto. Go stand in the corner for 30 minutes.

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/m...C11Fan/FBT.jpg

I'm happy but I can't decide if it's better that I'm already typed in the 767 or if I should have wanted another type rating (A-330)...oh well, I'm out in 5 yrs (that's my 20 yr point, I MAY stay in longer if the bs goes away, haha, right)...I wonder if I'll even fly it.

Good! Personally, I think its the height of absurdity to buy military goods from foreign sources. Period.

So how are they going to replace 415 KC-135s with 179 KC-46As?

By re-working all of the war plans and not planning to A/R strat airlift all over the world ...

Actually, alot of people don't know too much about the real KC-X plan...batch 1 is 179 tankers, then they are supposed to decide on the KC-Y, another batch of about 179 (give or take a hundred!). KC-Y could just be more KC-46's (the new official name of the KC-X Boeing 767 tanker), an improved B/C model of same tanker, or a whole new tanker completely. So, with modern equipment, 360 tankers should be able to replace 415 half century+ old ones...IMHO, the KC-Y is gonna happen alot faster than we think but it will actually be a KC-10 replacement since we are beating the snot out of those airframes and they currently have a worse dispatch rate than the -135's. They may stick with the original nomenclature and just call that the KC-Z plan and keep the KC-Y moniker for batch 2 of the -135 replacement. Clear as mud now?

By purchasing more KC-46A's in subsequent buys. That is the plan, to buy the initial batch and then more in the future. We'll see how that goes though....

Yeah, like the M9, the M249, the M240G, the Harrier, the Stryker.....

...the T-6, the T-45, the UH-72...

All of which could have been developed and produced in the US creating US jobs. Not to mention the loss of the manufacturing capacity when buying foreign goods for the US military.

Each and every one of those programs could have been cut off (parts, tech support, etc.) on the whim of a foreign government at any time.

And you think that's a good thing?

Uhhh, all of the previously mentioned aircraft are produced in the US by US workers. Not that I like the bus, but it would have created more US jobs since Airbus was going to use the KC-45 program as a bridge to producing commercial A330s in the US. But who knows, maybe they will anyway...

The T-6 and T-45 are built in the US. The T-45 development from the British Hawk was all done INCONUS by Boeing and US employees. Same with the T-6 development. The reason they use current platforms is because it's exponentially cheaper than developing a new one, which again is a better product for the tax payer.

As for the M9, that thing is a piece of FOD.

Sorry, but everything I've read said they would've flown green A330's to Mobile, where they would have done the tanker conversion. It would have been a European product.

As far as I'm concerned, US Taxpayer dollars are paying for an American made product, which we need now.

No, only the 1st 4 would be flown to mobile. The rest would be assembled there, then modified by Northrop. The KC-46 will have significant foreign content as well, how much? Who knows, but the 787 is around 50% foreign content, if not more.

As an aside, I was talking to one of the managers at mobile aerospace and he was very worried about airbus winning the tanker. He said it would significantly increase his labor cost as he competed with airbus for mechs and engineers.

Not saying it's a good or bad thing, it just is. I took your orginal statement about foreign made weapons as an implication that it would be something new. Just pointing out there's nothing new in it.

That said, I would argue that no foreign govt could have cut off any of these programs as they are all produced in the USA. I think the whole jobs argument on the airbus was BS, but it's a fact that a North American company was set up to supply and support the planes. It would have been an American controlled company building planes with American workers in America.

The M9 has it's issues no doubt, haven't heard a lot of real complaints against the 249 and 240. Should we have purchased an inferior US designed weapon? Is there any merit to the idea of buying the best design, and ensuring it's built in the US in independant facilities?

I have no idea which aircraft is better, I'll just be happy to see a new tanker before I die. However, I do find the "buy America" argument as a reason for Boeing over Airbus weak at best.

Doesn't matter Sputnik, Airbus's airplane wasn't the better choice.

I'll take your word for it, wasn't my point.

http://www.nastyhobbit.org/data/medi...watermelon.jpg

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Love that pic...TACC must have those posters at every computer station and telephone.

I don't even think the first unit to get the first one off the line will see it within 5 years. First two go to Altus I heard,...them McConnell,...etc

It was a joke.

Yeah, can't argue with that. That's a great photo.

If you guys don't start behaving pretty soon Jungle may show up with that bunny with a pancake on his head. Just telling 'ya so as to avoid that.

I thought Northrop dropped its participation with EADS when the new RFP was released (favoring the smaller tanker design).

The truth is that such large scale manufacturing is by necessity an international business. I wonder how many Boeing parts are made in Europe?

At least Boeing hasn't had a boom fall off yet.

True, I was refering to RFP1 and 2.

As for Boeing not having their boom fall off, I guess you gotta put it on an airplane first...:)

First vertical stabs, now booms. What's next?

Ok, I'm not being fair but I don't care. I'm glad Boeing got the contract.

Booms may have yet to fall off, but us receivers sure can rip them off!

EADS won't protest U.S. tanker contract

12:56 pm ET 03/04/2011 - MarketWatch Databased News

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Netherlands-based EADS said Friday that it would not protest a $30 billion U.S. contract to build the next generation of Air Force aerial-refueling tankers awarded to Boeing Co., laying to rest a decade-long dispute.

"We put our best effort into this," said Sean O'Keefe, chief executive of EADS North America. "In our view, the Department of Defense had altered its requirement from being a modernization to one that merely required the replacement of the existing KC-135 aircraft."


In the end, Boeing was able to offer a tanker price below what EADS offered, O'Keefe said, speaking at a news conference.

The Pentagon announced its decision last Thursday, surprising most industry watchers, who expected the deal to go to EADS, citing its lower price and additional capabilities beyond the requirements.

But Chicago-based Boeing lowered its bid. In addition, its 767 platform also met the requirements and would likely have a smaller life-cycle cost, the Air Force said. Read more about the tanker award.

Boeing received an initial fixed-price contract of $3.5 billion to develop and build 18 KC-46A tanker planes to be delivered by 2017. The value of the total program is more than $30 billion -- the first of three phases to eventually replace more than 400 aging KC-135 Stratotankers, some of which are more than 50 years old. Read about some of the risk in the tanker award.

The program could ultimately be worth more than $100 billion after pricing in 50 years of revenue for parts and services.

EADS could come back and bid on the later phases of the program.

Last month marked the third time the Air Force awarded the contract, which was revoked from Boeing in 2004 following a procurement and leasing scandal involving company personnel and Air Force officials.

The contract was handed out a second time in 2008 to EADS and its partner at the time, Northrop Grumman Corp. -- only to lose it after the U.S. Government Accountability Office sided with Boeing's claim that the bidding process had been flawed.

Northrop later dropped out of the competition altogether.

2015ish I think for the first jets on the ramp. Planning on a 15 per year buy so it's gonna take a while to come on line in numbers. Some debate last I heard on whether Altus (if that's going to be the FTU) will get a few at first to start training or if it goes straight to AMC with in-house training. My bet is on McConnell or Fairchild as first operational units based on the local congressional support Boeing gets in those states.

I heard more like 2017...It was in Aviation Week a few months back

Send it to a guard / reserve unit where half of the pilots are probably already 757/767 typed. Overnight you would have an FTU with a qualified cadre of pilots.

But that would save money and we wouldn't want to do that.

heard that the tanker will have the 787 cockpit design so the 757/767 type will not help

2017 is IOC with a full up squadron available to AMC. Deliveries to commence 2015. 787 cockpit with lots of features that are unavailable/irrelevant to the civilian side. For a tanker, it should be a pretty capable airplane. Lets hope the funding survives the impending budget battle.

Let's just hope Altus doesn't get the FTU and they can shut that "hole" down