-
Sweet Home, Alabama
June 11, 2013 | 38 comments
-
Laying Down My Pen
May 24, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Laying Down My Pen
May 23, 2013 | 92 comments
-
Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 46 comments
-
Putting Heritage in DeMint Condition
May 10, 2013 | 57 comments
Streetcar Line
Boeing, Boeing… Gone?
Have nasty politics put the air tanker, and our military, at risk?
(Page 2 of 2)
Bonner also said that a President Obama would have an incredibly difficult time building the promised better relationship with Europe if his administration rejects a plane merely because one of the plane’s two main corporate builders is a primarily foreign — European — company.
“This is the man who stood before 1 million people in Berlin. He can’t go back to Europe with all the challenges in the world and begin to build his promised partnerships but then say, by the way, we’re not going to use products that have any European connections.”
Finally Bonner pronounced himself unconcerned about incoming National Security Advisor James Jones’ service until last month on Boeing’s board of directors: “General Jones wore the uniform of his country long before he wore a suit as a Boeing corporate board member…. And with all the criticism of Vice President Cheney’s past ties to Halliburton, does the Obama administration want to be accused” of showing favoritism of a similar nature in making such a big decision?
NEVERTHELESS, POLITICS does talk in Washington. Boeing’s unprecedented hardball campaign to reverse Northrop’s tanker award, with arm-twisting in Congress and a high-profile and nasty advertising campaign against its competitor, has made it clear that if Northrop again wins the competition when it is renewed this year, Boeing will continue to press every appeal it is allowed, no matter how long it takes. But an award to Boeing, after such a clear initial victory by Northrop, would almost certainly lead Northrop to take the battle to court — where it would probably have quite a strong case. And the longer all this goes on, the longer our servicemen will have to wait for a tanker to replace the half-century-old fleet. That would be unforgivable.
As 22 retired Air Force generals wrote in a letter last summer, “Delays in the tanker program will only serve to put the lives of crews flying these aging systems in greater jeopardy.”
The best answer — the one that solves all the politics, that delivers the planes the soonest, and that forces both companies to be at their best in order to keep the business — is the one I advocated on these pages back in July of 2007: “The best idea might not be to give the whole award to Northrop or to Boeing, but to split it up.”
The first set of 68 planes in the first contract of 179 planes will take years for either company to fill, and eventually the entire fleet of 510 planes must be replaced. Why not keep both companies on their toes, forcing them to do good work by splitting the first batch while keeping the competition open for subsequent batches?
In the summer of 2007, many thought that idea preposterous. But in late September of 2008, powerful Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha of Pennsylvania told “Inside the Air Force” that (quoting the story’s lead paragraph) “The Air Force will have no choice but to split the… tanker award between rivals Boeing and Northrop Grumman-EADS if it wants to receive a new tanker anytime soon.”
The Pentagon darn well ought to listen to Murtha. If its splits the award before the end of February or even March, the first planes can begin being assembled by Northrop-EADS this autumn. But time’s a-wasting, and our military personnel are at increasing risk.
As Alabama Gov. Bob Riley told me last week, “We believe in competition. We believe in value. That’s what it means to be pro-American.”
About the Author
Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (87) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Quin Hillyer
More Articles From Streetcar Line
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/01/16/boeing-boeing-gone
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
rssg| 1.16.09 @ 7:29AM
There is a point where free trade becomes a religion, even to the point where it can destructive to the country.
Nothing is as important as our country, not political or economic theories. While I'm in favor of trade, just like immigration, some is good; but excessive trade and excessive immigration can be a real problem.
How? Be de-industrializing our nation. This leaves our nation more and more dependent on others; something against American tradition.
Defense weapons/assets should be US designed and made, not only for national security reasons but also to keep important engineering and manufacturing skills here domestically.
Ryan| 1.16.09 @ 8:15AM
Even though I'm in an Air Force town, I've spoken with several people who know the contract process and how messed up the entire situation was. NEITHER company went about it completely the right way - Northrup had the better price, but it's my understanding that they didn't have as good a working prototype.
That being said, I don't think that there is a way the entire thing would be completely made in America in any case. Some parts would almost HAVE to come from overseas. However, there's a LOT of cost that could be alleviated by having the thing built in the South.
Michael Gross| 1.16.09 @ 8:31AM
Mr. Hillyer's comments on the GAO's upholding Boeing's protest on "minor points" does not reflect the truth of the report. Here I quote the GAO report's conclusion, "Here, we find, as described above, a number of errors in the Air Force’s conduct of this procurement, including the failure to evaluate proposals in accordance with the RFP criteria and requirements and to conduct discussions in a fair and equal manner. But for these errors, we believe that Boeing would have had a substantial chance of being selected for award.90 Accordingly, we sustain Boeing’s protest of the Air Force’s award of a contract to Northrop Grumman for the aerial refueling tankers." In other words Northrup Grummon/Airbus was given a changed set of criteria, coached along the way, and designed a plane accordingly. The report found that Boeing was given the original criteria (not the revised set) and told that they were "doing fine" in their aircraft design, when in fact they were not. Thus they designed a plane that did not fit the modified criteria and thus lost the competition. The fault for the competition being scrapped lies with the personnel in charge of procurement for the Air Force in the Pentagon. Give all sides the same criteria and let the best plane win. However I do agree with the last commenter that it is logical and wise for any country (if they are capable) to provide completely for their own defense from within their own country.
Aurora| 1.16.09 @ 8:39AM
Mr. Gross is correct; the GAO findings were hardly "minor". They could have/should have resulted in a reversal of the award and Boeing declared the winner.
That said, I don't think a split buy is in the USAF's best interests and will actually prove costlier over the course of the life cycle. Both contenders would have done the job. If the USAF wants a tanker that actually has a chance of being funded, then it better go with Boeing.
taxpayer| 1.16.09 @ 11:19AM
To sustain a protest, the GAO has to state that the losing side had a substantial chance of being selected. Common wording in every sustained protest. The outcome of the protest was preordained by the political cronies of Boeing. There is no doubt that the Northrop Grumman-EADS offering was superior and cheaper. The EADS part is what killed the deal. However, the Air Force will have to accept the Boeing offering which is a suitable second choice.
L. Ross| 1.16.09 @ 12:45PM
I've been flying the venerable, 50 year old KC-135 since 1986. I believe I could be a bit of a subject matter expert.
I followed this competition since the initial failed tanker lease in about '03. The one that "expletive deleted" John McCain killed. Yes, I know, he wanted to lower costs. Yet, the contract he killed was 20 billion for 100 tankers. In 2008, the contract was 35 billion for 179 tankers. Five years gone by, minimal cost savings. And thanks, by the way, for injecting the Airbus element. I'm just dying to drive a French jet.
On the pro Airbus side (I don't like to pretend that this is a Northrup product, it's not) they were able to offer an incredibly large aircraft that can haul a bunch of lightweight cargo or people. It can hold a bit more fuel than the 767 as well, 250,000 lbs vs 200,000 lbs for the 767. The benefit from this extra fuel is minimal, because we rarely need even 200,000 lb fuel loads for a mission, and on longer missions, the Airbus will be burning that extra 50,000 lbs keeping itself aloft. It's a larger, heavier aircraft. The final pro about the Airbus is that it was able to offer this very large aircraft at a competetive price.
The con side of the Airbus is its size. The Airbus is larger than the KC-10. Of course, it carries 100,000 lbs less fuel, in spite of its larger size. The Airbus wingspan is wider than a 747, almost 200 feet. Your average non-aviation type person doesn't realize how many acres of concrete are required to park several jets that large. Let's just say the answer is stunning. The Airbus is heavier with a greater wheel loading. This means that it needs stronger runways and taxiways to operate from. Otherwise, the jet is so heavy that in short order those massive engines are blowing concrete right out of the runway.
The pro side for Boeing is that it is everything the Airbus isn't. It has a good payload of fuel, lower fuel burn per hour, less strain on runways and taxiways, you can park more on a given ramp, you more available runways which brings tankers closer to the fight, you can disperse them more widely. The 767, unlike the A330, will fit in our existing hangars.
Both planes offer vastly improved cargo and people carrying potential. The KC-135 can carry up around 60 people. The 767 can carry about 200, and the A330 almost 300. The KC-135 can carry up to 6 pallets. The 767 can carry about 18, and the A330 can carry about 30. Clearly, the A330 shines brightest as a cargo/passenger plane. That said, while it would be nice to have some additional cargo capability in the Air Force, my concern is that if the jet is so good at cargo, it will be difficult to free it up for refueling duty.
From a taxpayer money perspective, you could anticipate about 15 billion dollars going straight overseas on the Airbus offering. Do we really need to ship that kind of cash out, especially now? From a first to market perspective, Quin seems to think that Airbus (who has never built a boom refueling tanker) is a slam dunk on beating Boeing (who has built every boom refueling tanker ever made). Admittedly, the KC-767s Boeing is sending off to Italy are overdue, but that is because the wingtip drogue refueling system isn't quite up to speed. As a tanker pilot, I can tell you the wingtip drogue refueling system on the KC-135, the KC-10, the KC-130, and the KC-767 isn't up to speed. As far as the A330 tanker wingtip pods, there not all that hot either. I'm wondering if that technology should just be dropped as unworkable.
I strongly disagree with Quin's statements on how obviously superior the Airbus offering was. As the GAO demonstrated by overturning the Air Force' decision, the Air Force wasn't even following its own written guidelines for determining the contract winner. These are two very good aircraft, but if the Air Force is determined to have a fair competition, then they must follow the rules they determine for aircraft selection.
American| 1.16.09 @ 12:51PM
Taxpayer is correct of what GAO had to say. GAO should explain to the warfighter and us taxpayers how Boeing might have won. For Boeing to win, they would have had to bid the 767-400 or 777. Neither versions have a Tanker design configuration. Therefore Boeing's bid would have resulted in a longer schedule, higher design and implementation risk, and substantially higher cost than the Northrop cost. Boeing will be given the Tanker contract not because they have the best Tanker or are the best value to us Taxpayers but because they have a very powerful political influence and better Lawyers. A sad day for the warfighter and us taxpayers.
Thom| 1.16.09 @ 4:24PM
L. Ross,
Just exactly how does the A330 having 20% longer wing; 14% longer fuselage and weighting 110,000 gross lbs less than the KC-10 equate to less aircraft at what airfields? You could park half the first batch of 179 aircraft at my local Air Force base and still operate the entire Fighter wing out of there and it has only one run way. The airbases where I see Tankers based rarely have more than 9-10 aircraft at them. They get lost in all the larger commercial jets also based there by the dozens at a time. The last time I looked at this the A330 has a whole lot shorter take off and landing run than the KC-10 and the KC-10’s dual use capability is what the Air Force wants in a smaller more affordable package. The 767 has a longer takeoff and landing run at load precisely because of its shorter wings. Boeing would have to move up to the 767-400 wing length and weight to improve performance to be comparable. Boeing proponents keep beating the drum that the 767 is the ideal replacement for the 1950s ear 707. A new 707 is an ideal replacement for the 50 year old 707 frames by that thinking but neither of the Boeing designs can provide the dual use capability that the Air Force gets from the existing KC-10. The last time I looked into this the bulk of the “tanker” fleet sits on the runways most of its life as compared to the same in the commercial bird model. If the Air Force wants what I believe they have said they want, the 767 airframe will not provide the dual use capability and in effect be a single mode aircraft sitting on the runways most of its life waiting for that “surge” call. It will require more 767s to do the same job(s) and take up even more ramp space to deliver the same cargo (be it fuel or pallets) to any destination. Tankers do more than just deliver fuel to aircraft in flight. It all comes to down to does the Air Force get what they say they want or just what the only American commercial aircraft manufacturer offers? If Boeing is just given this “because”, no other American Defense contractor will bother to bid against Boeing from this point on. You are feeding a Monopoly for short term political gain and long term negatives that will accomplish the same thing as off shoring this contract in time. If it were my decision, I would have forced Boeing to break up its commercial aircraft business long ago.
This whole matter seems to have come down to some wanting to tell the Air Force what it needs vs. the Air Force deciding what it needs. I have a problem with that approach in an environment where there is essentially a single suitable bidder by default in some people’s minds.
Aurora| 1.16.09 @ 7:25PM
Thom: "It all comes to down to does the Air Force get what they say they want or just what the only American commercial aircraft manufacturer offers?"
I would suggest it all comes down to what the Congress is willing to fund. We have already seen what they are NOT willing to fund. The USAF does Not get the last word here. Given the priorities and expectations of the incoming Obama administration, do you really think they will go to the mat for a "French" tanker (or a French Air Force One)?
Thom| 1.16.09 @ 7:49PM
Aurora,
It always comes down to what Congress is willing to fund. How do you explain that all our main battle tanks (over 20,000 produced) have British or German main guns in them since the early 60s? Our main 30 caliber machine gun and squad machine guns are all foreign designs; Our main Seal incursion boats are foreign designs; our main side arms are foreign; foreign contractors even build the “American” M-16 and variants for us at times; our newest light utility Helo to replace the UH1s in service are foreign; our Marine Recon wheeled vehicles are foreign…… the list goes on and these are weapon systems not a commercial airframe converted to a military tanker by adding military navigation, communication and defensive systems to it. If both aircraft had the same exact cost metrics, the “French” one as you call it has a 20% higher capacity than the Boeing design and that means if you pick the Boeing design you are going to get a lot less capacity for a given contract amount or have to buy more to make up the capacity short fall at a substantial increase in contract cost. The only way Obama can save money on this and pick Boeing is to buy even less aircraft than requested by the Air Force which just piles on to making the whole purpose of a bid process moot. I believe there are legal consequences to that course of action unless they cancel the entire contract and start from scratch with very specific airframe specs and unit numbers. If you spec out a generic airframe capacity that just happens to match the Boeing model, NG will simply drop the matter and sue for damages to get its money back from a rigged process.
George Hanshaw| 1.16.09 @ 8:19PM
Hey - I wouldn't worry much about this issue. Obama is going to soon be putting such DEEP cuts in the DOD budget that no military procurement is going to occur for quite awhile.
Remember Jimmy Carter? Get ready for it all over again.
Thom| 1.16.09 @ 8:42PM
George, no disagreement there. Between his stated desire to cut it 15% and his buddies desire to cut it 25% I really think the 707 airframes are going to have to make due for another decade or two.... no kidding. I hope L. Ross is comfortable with that. 400-500 of anything as large as a commercial airframe converted to military use is going to cost a lot more than Obama can stand....He just isn't going to be able to deal with the scope of the overall problem and age of the bulk of our weapon systems and platforms.
Jim| 1.17.09 @ 1:26AM
Tankers do not mainly sit on the ground, especially since they end of the cold war. True, they flew very little because they sat on alert throughout the cold war. Ever since, they have supported missions throughout the world to include Desert Storm, Op. Southern Watch/Northern Watch, Kosovo & Bosnian Compaigns, and now OIF and OEF. Tanker squadrons are usually deployed and the few aircraft that are behind are down for maintenance with a few for crew training. The aircraft are rapidly putting hours on the airframes (flying hours is the true measure of the age of the aircraft) which require more maintence (more money) to keep them flying.
There are 2 things working against the Airbus. One, yes it can carry a bit more gas, but when it comes time to getting a strike package on target, you need more booms in the air to expedite the flow of aircraft on and off the tanker to maximize how much gas the fighters/attack aircraft have in the fight. Two, the larger footprint means fewer aircraft at a deployed location, upwards of 30% fewer. This means that other tanker aircraft will have to fly farther to get to the air refueling tracks and have the tankers deployed to multiple locations. This will equate to a bigger burden on the Air Force's mission support personnel. Bigger does not always equal better. Not every misson requires the full fuel/cargo capacity be used. Still, the primary mission of the tanker is to refuel. The additional cargo capacity is a great benefit, but does virtually no good when supporting their fighter/strike bretheren.
OIF was a great example of having limited airfields near the battlefield. Tankers had to fly from a variety locations and arrived on station will less fuel to offload. The AF also supported two carrier strike groups out of the Eastern Mediterranean with upwards of 40 aircraft in a push. It took multiple formations of tankers to be able to ensure that the attack packages were able to enter the theater on time with fuel enough to accomplish their mission. With more fuel, the attack aircraft were able to loiter longer and provide additional support and flexibility to the ground campaign. The greater number of booms and drogues allowed such support.
Aurora| 1.17.09 @ 6:54AM
"Thom: If you spec out a generic airframe capacity that just happens to match the Boeing model, NG will simply drop the matter and sue for damages to get its money back from a rigged process."
Yes, but you presume there will be a competition. There is no real need. The SECDEF has the authority (actually he is required) by law to consider the defense infrastructure for major procurements. This could go to sole source.
Further, with a defense department as large as ours it is quite easy to cherry pick examples where foreign components and systems have been procured and apply it to ones' flawed rationale to continue down that dark road. Frankly, L. Ross made the best technical case yet against the large airbus. Why isn't the USAF listening to the operators?
Don't you find it mildly suspicious that several of Senator McCain's aides are now Northrop Grumman lobbyists? Or that the GAO found that the USAF rationale was so flawedand one point so damaging that it "should never have constituted the basis for an award" (paraphrase)?
Another such competition will only engender another political blood bath and the result will be that the USAF better have a plan to re-work those KC-135Es back to "zero time" and re-engine them. Congress, at least not this Congress, will not fund a "french" tanker. Period.
Perhaps if the next census results in a couple hundred congressional seats being relocated to the south, the french plane may have a chance?
For America| 1.17.09 @ 10:19AM
My husband has flown tankers in the Iraq war. He would prefer the Boeing offering. It is more manuverable and will require less tax dollars for runways and hangars. The Airbus company is trying to buy their way in to this business which is why their price is competitive. That company is partially owned and subsidized by their government. Boeing deserves this contract. NG is the front man. They are not the builders of this plane.
Alan Brooks| 1.17.09 @ 12:25PM
Ryan,
when you wrote planes could be built for lower cost in the South hope you didn't mean Mexico :)
Thom| 1.18.09 @ 3:36PM
Jim,
All military aircraft are flying more hours since the Cold War ended but no KC-135 has anything like the annual hours of a comparable commerical airframe (707). They are this old and still flying because of this and are going to have to fly at least another 20 years while just this part of the contract plays out. They are old and costly designes to maintain but not worn out by their actual use (yet). The A330 refueling system has a faster flow rate and can refuel three aircraft at a time if the other two can use something other than the flying tail unit. Many Nato aircraft use this method. Why do you think there will be less A330 tankers in the air than 767 models? The A330 came in cheaper per airframe.
Aurora| 1.18.09 @ 3:47PM
The transfer rate is only part of the equation; most tactical aircraft are limited at the rate they receive from the tanker. The KC-767 will also have the hose and drogue system that permits refueling of multiple aircraft. The U.S. Navy and USMC have used this method for years.
I have not read where the KC-30 has actually transferred fuel through its boom. The ones for Australia were delayed; both parties are being very closed mouth over the reason.
Thom| 1.18.09 @ 3:55PM
Rather than try to debunk every urban legend about what the Boeing 767 or Airbus 330 is or isn’t I’m just going to state what I believe to be true and let anyone that can prove me wrong with supported facts do so. Supported facts aren't URL links to someone else opinions.
1) The A330 carries about 20% more cargo weight be it fuel or otherwise. It has a 50% larger cargo volume for non fuel (30 pallets vs. 19-20) than the Boeing 767 design. It can carry its full fuel weight and a lot more passengers/cargo up to its MTO weight than the 767.
2) The A330 at full take off weight has a shorter take off run than the Boeing 767.
3) The 767, KC-10, re-engined KC-135 and A330 have essentially the same thrust to weight ratio. The A330 maneuvers no worst than the KC-10 at worst.
4) The KC-10 is 110,000 lbs heavier than the A330 and is used exactly as the Air Force wants to do with the A330 model (as a duel mode freighter when not being used as a tanker). Tankers like the KC-135 spend most of their life sitting on the tarmac for a single type of mission. The KC-10s are used on a full time basis to move fuel, personnel or cargo at the same time. It is cheaper to do that than have to use C-17/C-5/C-130s for cargo/personnel and tankers for just fuel when Air Force units deploy during “surges”.
5) The A330 has a shorter take off run and landing run carrying the load of a 767 allowing it to use more run ways than the 767 can with that load. With that 767 load it can fly further also.
6) The A330 can refuel up to three aircraft at the same time while the 767 can only refuel one at a time. The refuel rate of the A330 system is higher than the 767. I know the bulk of US Air Force aircraft only use the flying boom method but the A330 unit is also faster than the 767 unit. Navy Aircraft use the Probe-and-Drogue method that A330 carries on the outer wings. The A330 design can refuel three Navy Aircraft at a time if the Probe-and-Drogue adapter is on the Flying boom unit, not exactly a trivial point in the age of using short range fighter aircraft for strategic bombing missions.
7) 5 A330s can do the same work as 6 767 canceling out the smaller foot print of the 767 at airports.
8) The larger 767-400 model has increase cargo capacity over the bid model and weighs a lot more also. It also has a much longer take off run at max load from a significantly reduced thrust to weight ratio. It cost a measurable amount more than the A330 and still can’t match its cargo capacity.
9) There are no ground pressure issues with the A330. It can operate anywhere the 767 can (that anyone would want to fly in and out of that is)
10) The 767 fits in existing KC-135 hangers. True. How many hangers are we talking about for a fleet of 510 KC-135s? Modular hangers can be made larger in place over the 20 year contract. For that matter newly produced KC-135s would also fit and be a lot cheaper than the 767 design.
11) If you want an “American” design that can match the A330 capacity you will have to use a “light” 777 airframe to do that. That will cost a lot more than the A330 airframe.
12) The additional air/ground crew cost of 767 airframes to match the same capacity of A330 airframes is going to more than make up for any incidental operational airframe cost differences over the life of each aircraft. The individual A330s will cost more to operate because they are larger. They also do more work meaning that more 767 airframes and crews will be required to do the same work and cost even more. That’s just the nature of the beast. The larger aircraft running at capacity is going to get more work done at less total cost all else equal.
13) The mission of this aircraft is very important, critical even but there is nothing inherently “military” about this airframe and the bulk of equipment it carries. Even the refueling system is not military technology in the strictest sense of the word. This is a COTS product being modified for military use but outside that it is just a commercial aircraft. The money saved on this can be put to better use in true military technology.
14) The A330 design came in less expensive per aircraft even ignoring all the pluses it has for overall mission capacity. If you want the more “American” design you are going to pay a lot more for it to get the same capacity.
Thom| 1.18.09 @ 4:07PM
Jim,
The A330 does not have a 30% larger foot print. Try again.
Thom| 1.18.09 @ 4:12PM
Aurora, the A330 has three times the fuel rate of the bid 767 design. The 767 tanker design was several years late in being delivered. Delays and problems are the norm not the exception. Boeing has only been doing tankers for 60 years so one would expect it should get it right and not be delayed right? Like I said, a new KC-135 is looking better all the time.
Thom| 1.18.09 @ 4:17PM
For America, I prefer to fly Boeing aircraft but in real world I have to fly what is available which includes AirBus types. I used to prefer American cars too but haven't owned one of those since 1977. This country does not build anything comparable to the 20 year old car I'm trying now and it is still in series production where as no American sedan that old (or even half that old) is. I don't prefer either tanker but see that the AirBus airframe is more flexible, less expensive and has higher capacities over the 767 airframe. Are all the vehicles you own American designs btw?
Thom| 1.18.09 @ 4:35PM
"Further, with a defense department as large as ours it is quite easy to cherry pick examples where foreign components and systems have been procured and apply it to ones' flawed rationale to continue down that dark road. "
Cherry picked? I'd run out of room listing all the foreign components in our American military equipment. Much of what we do produce is produced using “foreign” machines/tools that we don’t make here. Did you know that? Do you know what percentage of the Boeing 787 is “American” made? A whole lot less than most think. There is a whole lot of Chinese flying around in the later model Boeings these days.
You apparent don’t grasp the importance of the main protection technology of the M1 tank, its 105 and 120 mm guns, all our current medium and squad machine guns are all foreign designs. Add another 15 thousand M60 upgraded M48s with British technology guns and the tip of the spear with our ground forces is heavily foreign in design. Boeing can compete with the AirBus design if it choose to but not at the same price. Price is going to determine the final unit count and with 510 KC-135s to replace the Boeing 767 design is simply going to cost more and reduce the ultimate number of airframes down. Politics are what they are and I can’t change any of that but the A330 design offers increased flexibility at the same price while the 767 design offers. If we go with Boeing we are going to get less overall tanker capacity when all is said and done. A net loss due to cost. TOC favors the Airbus airframe even though it will cost more to fly per airframe. A 50-60 year span adds up to a lot more dollars pumped into the tanker fleet that could better be used in the real military weapons platform area. That’s all. Boeing does not want to compete. That bothers me on a different level.
Kpar| 1.18.09 @ 5:12PM
I don't have a dog in this fight. That said, I DO believe that the way the procurement procedure has been conducted poorly (and in some ways, suspiciously).
My local paper (the Chicago Tribune) has dropped all reference to EADS, preferring to list Northrup as the only named contractor on that side of the issue. This "conservative rag" also endorsed Obama for president, so we can, perhaps, view its pro-American bona fides with a pinch of salt.
It is my understanding that the contest criteria were changed after the initial bid, and that Boeing was NOT informed of the changes until late in the process- otherwise they might have been tempted to submit a modified version of one of their other products (a 777, perhaps?) intsead of the smaller aircraft. I note this with dismay.
Boeing has a proven boom design- EADS/Northrup does not. I note this with concern.
The revised Air Force requirements do not consider the costs involved with upgrading the ground facilities for the larger aircraft- a not inconsiderable amount which cannot be ignored- as this most certainly affects the total cost of this endeavor.
As an old car enthusiast, I like to astound my friends with British cars when I tell them that Lucas Electric has abandoned their automotive business in favor of their new enterprise: fly-by-wire controls for Airbus. The look on their faces is ALWAYS good for a laugh!
I have read posts (on this subject) by those who claim to be aviation professionals who swear that they will never fly, nor will they allow family and friends to fly on an Airbus product. I don't know, I have flown on several A-320s and am still here to write about it (admittedly, I rarely fly- I prefer to drive long distances in my Chevrolet Corvair convertible when time permits- let the readers decide on who takes a bigger chance).
L. Ross makes a persuasive argument- and, considering his experience, I tend to give him his due. Still, the size of the contract, as well as the time involved in replacing the entire tanker fleet, makes me think that a split contract may give us the most "bang for the buck". I recall reading that the USAF split the contract for 30 mm ammunition for the GAU-8 cannon used on the A-10 (Warthog), giving whichever supplier provided the best price/quality the bulk of the order for that year, and got the cost of the rounds down to 30% of the initial bids, over time.
Were this system to be used in the current contretemps ( I like that word!) foreign government subsidies would become apparent, and the flexibility of the two types would, as well.
Well, that's my two cents.
Hitch Hiker| 1.18.09 @ 5:26PM
I personally disagree with Quinn and think the a/c should be built in America entirely by Americans but this all misses the real point, which is do we need this procurement, the "new" aircraft, the numbers, capabilities, etc, as much as we need other things for defense, the economy or elsewhere for America? Hopefully President Obama will have this concern in lieu of merely trying to decide who's right here. I'm not counting on it though.
Thom| 1.18.09 @ 6:05PM
Given that Boeing and Air Force personnel were prosecuted for the first contract (sole source essentially) I would tend to agree that the entire process is tainted probably beyond repair. Both sides have their boosters but it has been demonstrated that Boeing has kind of a mafia backing it. As good as an aircraft like the C-17 is it came very close to being cancelled more than once due to cost overruns. The C-17 package was an aggressive set of targets to hit for sure. The Lockheed C-5 had numerous initial problems and cost overruns also. The difference here which seems to not mean much to the “Buy America” Boeing supporters is that neither design can be built with just American parts, material, labor. The Boeing design is more American but not enough to justify what some want to turn into a national security issue. Some commercial airframe is going to get converted here into a multi use cargo/tanker not a purpose built military weapon platform requiring our own infrastructure here to produce. I find the “foot print” argument a red herring at best. The hanger argument also. Based on those arguments, we would have nothing but C-130s for cargo aircraft and still flying B-29 instead of B-52, B-1 and very hanger specific B-2s. Hordes of KC-135 don’t base at a single “foreign” airbase today thus no single base is going to have reduced capacity because of the A330 design. It gets lost that the 767 is a lot larger than the KC-135 also even if it fits the current hangers in the US only. The 767 carries more than the KC-135 with an increased foot print just like the A330 design carries more than the A330 with an increased foot print. Look at an aerial view of your typical foreign “friendly” air field these things would operate out of. You wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between an A330 and 767 from height and distance. This whole process is political at this point. Regardless of which design is chosen I strongly suspect the ultimate cost of each airframe will cause a reduction in our over all fleet and capacity making some of the arguments the Boeing people make moot.
Aurora| 1.18.09 @ 6:46PM
The KC-30's airframe will be build and assembled in Europe. Period.
Do we really want an integral component of our force projection capability subject to a veto by the French president or German chancellor?
Do anyone think that the Obama administration will opt for jobs in Toulouse or Everett, WA?
Thom| 1.18.09 @ 7:31PM
Aurora, the sub assembles will be produced all over Western Europe but assembled here and then converted to a tanker here. Once delivered, much if not all of the required support can be US based given time to develop. I don’t think any foreigner one can veto that after it gets here. Boeing does the same thing with its commercial models now. It 787 will be mostly foreign build. I submit the 787 design would have been a much better freighter/tanker design than either the 30 year old 767 or 16 year old A330 design but guess what, it can’t all be produced here for an amount of money “any” Congress will accept. It is not a "french" plane. Our other Allies, who happen to buy our F-16s, F-35s, AWACS, C-130s, etc will also just happen to be involved in the building of those sub assembles. If they built and assembled it in Europe they wouldn't need to build an assembly facility here along with a conversion facility here. You don’t get 48,000 domestic jobs by building and assembling it in Europe.
This airframe is a commercial jet not an “integral component of our force projection capability” per say. Any commercial jet that can do the job is suitable for such a mission. There isn’t much all American stuff left in the inventory but you can continue to believe that if you wish. The KC-135 has foreign stuff in it btw, particularly the upgraded ones.
As for Obama, I think he will do what is political without regard to what is best. Picking the 767 is political; paying for its higher price is something else however.
Steven| 1.19.09 @ 9:06AM
The planes WILL be built in europe! You really don't think EADS would fly or ship parts for a plane to be assembled in the US, when they could just fly a completed plane here instead. Government subsidized Airbus and EADS main mission is to put Boeing out of business, that is all. Should our taxpayer money go to help them?
Southerners sell themselves as cheap labor, undercutting other areas in the US, thats what we need in America- lower wages. Yeah right!
Thom:
Political? Paying the cheaper price to satisfy people like you wouldn't be political?
Thom| 1.19.09 @ 3:26PM
Steven, you clearly don't know what was bid by NG and what the details of the contract say. Keep believing that the aircraft will be built there and flown here if that makes your day. That process alone would add considerable cost to the planes. As for “cheaper price” to satisfy people like me, well since I paid over $10,000 in Federal income tax last year and my tax burden rises faster than my income, well yes to a certain extent. How much did you pay last year in Federal income tax? The average tax burden is a wee bit below this and low bidder has kind of ruled government contracts going on a couple hundred years now. You sound just like a UAW man, completely vacant in knowledge of what real cost are and where the funds for this stuff have to come from. $200 million for a commercial aircraft that will spend the bulk of its life sitting on the tarmac is real money to most people but apparently not to you.
btenney| 1.19.09 @ 3:33PM
Having many years ago crewed on KB 29s and KB 50s I have soft spot for Boeing.
From a practical stand point it appears that the opinion of the Accountants is outweighing that of the Operations People.
Just like Utilities prosper when headed by Engineers and decline when run by Accountants.
Thom| 1.19.09 @ 4:59PM
btenney, while there is truth to that (my first commercial flight was in a DC-3) the competitive environment we had back in the 50-60 is gone. The Boeing of today is not the Boeing of yesterday when things like the 707 and B-52 were coming off their lines. The lack of embedded US competition is killing our ability to maintain our edge. The emotional rhetoric “buy American” has been losing the argument for going on 40 years and most of what Americans think is “American” today is a mix of foreign and domestic. The reasons for this are simply economics 101 and neither you nor I can change that. The underlying intrinsic problem is too complex to be addressed in a Blog but needless to say if we opt for the more expensive and less capable tanker aircraft for political reasons then Europe will opt for something other than the F-35 (which is getting less and less affordable all the time). I don’t like political tit for tat games but given the chose between what some call a “French” tanker and having less F-35s produced because of their cost increase due to Europe pull of the joint production contract, I’d opt for the “French” thing because the F-35 is what is important, not the commercial airframe converted to a tanker.
Aurora| 1.19.09 @ 7:46PM
"but needless to say if we opt for the more expensive and less capable tanker aircraft for political reasons then Europe will opt for something other than the F-35 ...."
The only problem with that comment, Thom, is that none of the Airbus countries are in the running for the F-35 with the exception of the UK, who is a Tier One participant--especially for the carrier variant. The Netherlands and Norway have already stated their preference for the F-35 and Denmark is expected to announce their preference shortly. Neither Germany, France, or Spain have any interest in the F-35, regardless of which tanker is selected.
The KC-30 is a "French/European" airplane; it will be painted in Alabama. The full assembly line won't be up and running for many, many years.
In the meantime, Airbus wants to use U.S. taxpayer money to subsidize the opening of a facility in North American that will threaten the position of the U.S.'s strongest exporter, Boeing. Brilliant. What is baffling is that there are actually a few--nowhere near a majority--but a few, members of Congress that think this is OK.
We are in a new era, like it or not. John Young and Sue Payton are leaving, to be replaced by Obama-ites. Secretary Gates would rather not deal with these contentious acquisition issues.
Advantage Boeing.
Thom| 1.19.09 @ 9:53PM
Aurora, we need 48,000 US jobs to paint and convert a commercial airframe to a freighter/tanker? Like the US, the Airbus units have suppliers all over the Western Europe not just the three main partners of EADS. The Dutch and Spain are also partners. The whole purpose of the Joint Strike Fighter is to get an international production line to reduce its cost to the point it doesn't end up like the F-22. Sole source the Tanker to Boeing and future projects like that will go away. Britain may not mean much to you but they did buy our C-130s and would have liked to have bought some of our C-17s but Boeing priced them out of the market so the A400 is what they can afford. They are part of EADS so if you think you are just sticking your finger in the "french" part of the aircraft you are wrong. Same for Italy who buys our weapon systems and produce several variants under US license. If this were just a pure "french" design no one would buy it. They don't produce anything of this quality in the military forces.
Jim| 1.20.09 @ 4:34AM
Follow-up comments:
1. Yes, the KC-135 airframe is relatively young in respect to hours. Still, it is being used heavily and the amount of deep maintance required to keep them airworthy is impressive especially in light of the amount of corrosion they keep finding. Like a car, the costs will continue to rise.
2. Unless the AF has changed it rules, the A330 can only refuel 2 aircraft via the wingpods at a time, just like the KC-135 and just like the 767 which has the wingtips pods, also. This is safety reasons due to wingtip clearances between air refueling aircraft. As easy as the crews make it seem, air refueling is a dangerous business.
3. The ramp space reuirement for the A330 is much larger than the 767, which happens to have a slightly larger footprint thant the KC-135. The A330's wingspan is 197' and length is 192' for a square footage of 37,824'. The 767's wingspan is 156' and length is 159' for a square footage of 24,804'. That makes its footprint 35% smaller than the A330. However, the key is the wingtip clearances when manuevering and parking. The extra 41' of wingspan is a big deal to an airfield manager trying to MOG out their ramp for contingency operations.
4. The amount of gas offloaded to given receiver is limited by the receiver's plumbing. Some, like the venerable B-52 can take the 6000ppm for which the KC-135's fuel panel and sytem was designed. Fighters are bit more delicate in that regard. When they are refueled, KC-135s are limited to 1, maybe 2, of the hydraulic air refueling pumps. This is due to too much pressure on the system and the fighter will literally get blown off the boom or drogue.
Aurora| 1.20.09 @ 6:12AM
Thom, the point was that the UK is wedded to the F-35 program, especially the carrier variant. BAE, which is a UK company, already has a significant U.S. presence and is a major supplier of vehicles to the U.S. Army. If they are going to build new aircraft carriers, they need the F-35. As for the A400, it is an unqualified disaster at this point and EADS is threatening to walk away if the Airbus governments don't fork over more cash and renegotiate the contract. When the dust settles, this thing will likely end up costing almost as much as the vastly more capable C-17. France, Germany, and Spain will likely stay with the program until the next ice age, but the UK is already making noises. But there is one relevant point with respect to the A400 that has bearing on the tanker procurement: the Airbus governments went all out to protect their domestic infrastructure, opting for the home grown solution. Of course, some argue "cost" and "tactical versus strategic" were the discriminators, but those issues have long since been blurred by time and events. Further, they spurned a P&W;engine and mandated a "european" solution. Frankly, I find this praise worthy and I hope the new administration takes note.
Frankly, we don't owe them a thing. The KC-30 is nothing else if not "european". The airframe will be manufactured in Europe and assembled in Toulouse and flown to Mobile, AL, for painting and "fitting out". At some point, EADS said they were open to transferring a significant amount of assembly to Mobile, but were mum on exactly when that would happen.
My point earlier about EADS wanting to use American taxpayer money to undercut our biggest exporter stands. Why subsidize someone that wants to cut your throat?
Thom| 1.20.09 @ 4:49PM
Jim, name me a current ARS base (domestic or foreign) where the foot print of the A330 will actually matter? I know there are no US bases, even those with up to 4 ARS based there where this will matter. Any place with a run way long enough to handle the take off run of a fully loaded KC-767 or even larger and heavier KC-10 is going to have a lot of ramp space to handle the types of commerical jets typically flying out of there. The current foreign basing scheme has to support things larger than a 707 foot print.
Thom| 1.20.09 @ 5:44PM
Aurora, you seem to think EADS/AirBus is the only cutthroat aerospace company in this equation. Hardly. Boeing had a lot to do with driving Lockheed out of the business and McDonald Douglas into their arms. We got two big dogs left in this market and each will do exactly what it can get away with to stay on top. That’s why a Boeing employee and Air Force employee are in jail from the last virtual Boeing award. With hundreds of A300 and A320 class commercial aircraft flying above US airspace going on three decades now under US Carriers I’d be more worried about how our own local monopoly is going to stay competitive in the world market rather than EADS getting a foothold here. Having the Communist Chinese build some of Boeing's aircraft and parts of others and parts of the 787 being built all over the world makes the 30 year old 767 design nearing the end of its production run look like something designed to stick it to US tax payer the cost of being the last buyer of an airframe that will be around another 40-60 years after it goes out of commercial production. Exactly what we have with the KC-135s now. The current KC-135 fleet, both the E and R models have used only about 40% of their hours and some will be 70 years old when they get replaced 30 years from now. I really don’t care who gets the award but I do care about the larger picture of which this tanker war is just a part.
Two points,
1) Your allegations about EADS production here are in stark contrast with NG published statements. If you are correct then they are guilty of fraud and Boeing would certainly appreciate your help in sending some of NG/EADS management to jail to keep the Air Force and Boeing guys already there company from the last so called “contract”. I don’t think over a 15-30 year production run having the first aircraft assembled in Europe is going to make any difference to where the ultimate gross number of units are assembled.
2) Since 1988, we’ve cut our forces in half. The bulk of our weapon system platforms are 30+ and even older years old. Every new major weapon system program has been cancelled since then except the F-22 and the F-35. The F-35 is supposed to be the affordable stealth platform to replace over 2000 F-16s, F-18s and A-10s. The F-35 is getting less affordable by the day and nothing it will ever be able to do will be as cheap as what the A-10 does within its limitations. The F-22 has been clipped at less than one third the aircraft it will have to replace (the F-15C Air Superiority role) and been rebranded to also be an attack plane. This is compounded by an early retirement of the F-117 to be replaced by the F-22. The F-15 fleet has fatigue and corrosions problems now; the F-16s are going to hit their hours not too far down the road. The advanced age of the F-15 and F-16 fleet is going to cause either a reduction in flyable numbers or a significant overhaul cost to a 1970’s technology platform. Either way, a net reduction in airframes and capability. The all F-18 fleet fighter bombers can’t do anything in the ground attack role at any reasonable distance without lots of auxiliary fuel tanks hanging off the fuselage or wings and/or massive ground based tanker support. Given we’ve been using short range tactical fighter bombers for strategic missions, the money we saved on the F-16/F-18s is being offset by all the tanker aircraft and their operating cost needed to support those missions. We cut the surface combat fleet almost in half; reduced air combat wings sizes to about two thirds their Cold War size and retired the S-3 to save money. We’ve retired one carrier early to save money; and will drop one more when the Enterprise goes out in 2012. That’s a net loss of two carrier battle groups capability. We can buy 6 nuclear carriers for the Boeing 767 bid or fully equip 4 with aircraft. We are replacing the Los Angles submarine class with a very expensive technology advanced boat that has less overall capability where submarine capabilities are concerned. That 2 million dollar British armor technology protected, German 120 mm gun armed M1A Abrams we built in the 1980s would cost more than this first batch of 179 tankers to replace if we did them today. We’ve been selling off our most advanced model to those in the Middle East that seem to have the money for them. We replaced 271 C-141s with an equal lift of 120 C-17s and took a net loss in capability because the C-17 (and its larger cousin C-5) are grossly inefficient and costly to move the “mail”. Mail is composed of people, their personnel gear and bulky light weight pallet packaged stuff. A modern C-141 would be much more efficient and less costly to operate for moving low density loads like this and airborne operations. Hence, the need for a more efficient transport for moving the “mail” leaving the aging C-5 fleet and C-17 fleet free to do what they do best, carrying large and heavy loads. We are adding additional C-17 to replace the C-5A models for a net loss in overall lift capability.
Do you see a trend here over the last 20 years? We aren’t replacing our aging platforms on a one for one basis. Not even close. Given the number of 707 airframe based tankers now the likelihood that we will replace the bulk of or even most with new 767s or A330 is remote. The bid contract called for 179 aircraft over 15 years leaving over 320 KC-135s in service when they average 60 years old. The last units in service could be nearly 80 years old by the time we replaced them one for one. At their current rate of use, they are putting on a fraction of the hours a similar commercial jet is. The R model is doing about one third what a similar medium/long haul jet is doing based on my experience. Maintaining 50, 60, 70, 80 year old aviation equipment that hasn’t been in mainline commercial service is quite expensive and the annual cost of maintaining the existing 707 fleet is rising every year. As I said earlier, these birds sit on the tarmac most of their life but their exposure to the elements still does damage to them. The Air Force does not want to have to buy another fleet of single purpose aircraft that spend their life on the tarmac. They also don’t want to have to use single purpose tankers and our limited number of C-17s and diminishing C-5 fleet to move fuel, people and their light loads. The 44 KC-10s are used now as the A330 would be used.
Wrap all this up with this salient fact of life. Out of 304 million people in this country only about 141,000,000 pay any income taxes at all. Out of that, about 70,000,000 pay 96 % of the income tax burden. When you adjust out non employment age children, retired senior citizens that pay little or no tax you get tens of millions of able bodied adults that do not support the cost of all this. The number of people paying for all this is shrinking as a percentage of the total number of people being supported by the people paying the bulk of the cost of this stuff. I see no trend that is this going to change in the next 4-8 years or for that matter next decade or two given what unfunded mandates are coming due in less than 10 years. So while the UAW narrow minded “Buy American” type mindset keeps pretending it isn’t so, the hardcore truth is that someone has to pay for all this stuff and there is nothing about rewarding a monopoly consistent with being able to buy enough of what is required to meet our needs given a 20 year trend of buying less and less of each class of platform. The tanker is important but not nearly as important as some make it out to be compared to the growing list of weapon system platforms that need to be significantly upgraded or replaced. Given a choice between a $200 million F-22 and a $200 million 767 tanker, I’d choose the F-22 over the tanker. The F-22 has a lot more operational range than F-16s and F-18s we have to have hundreds of tankers to support. It requires less tanker support. Unless you think money truly grows on trees, hard choices have to be made to get the most bang for the limited procurement money there is. It would be nice if we could get something like the 600 707 airframes in the inventory today for the inflation adjusted cost we paid back in the 1950-60s but that isn’t going to happen unless Boeing figures out how to make a 767 tanker a whole lot cheaper than it is today. All our current tactical aircraft models will be gone by the time the last KC-135 goes. It has been clearly demonstrated that less is less to our adversaries. If we stay on this trend line, our tanker fleet is going to be the single largest aircraft model.
Aurora| 1.21.09 @ 5:27AM
Thom, one thing I've noticed is that when airbus supporters' arguments run dry, they fly to the refuge of the outsourcing on the 787 program and the USAF procurement scandal. Fact is, Boeing messed the 787 program up and hopefully learned from it, whilst on the other the guilty parties have been punished & fines paid. However, there are some who think of this as being on the same level as original sin and can't let it go. Interesting that you bring up China: "[H]aving the Communist Chinese build some of Boeing's aircraft and parts of others..." you are aware that Airbus built an A320 plant in Tianjin, aren't you?
None of the "woes" and "challenges" you mention (and I wholeheartedly agree they are significant) will be solved by buying a european airplane and painting it in USAF colors. We need to reconstitute our own defense industrial base. Obama, so far, seems to be saying the same thing.
BTW, Northrop Grumman keeps touting "48000" jobs, but I suspect they are counting the people doing community service and picking up trash along Mobile's highways in that number. It strains credulity and takes an act of faith to buy into the argument that we would be better served letting the euros build our airframes.
Thom| 1.21.09 @ 3:31PM
Aurora, you assume a lot by calling me an Airbus supporter and yes I’m aware that Airbus (and every other major commercial player) is looking at or has placed plants in China. That is kind of the point of all this. If Boeing could produce the 787 in this country at a cost that would win it sells it would do that but it can’t. The end of production run 767 airframe provides them with the most profit as compared to the new production run 787s and be it market forces from Airbus or their own efforts with the 787, the 767 airframe is a dead end. Like the automotive industry before it, there are different utility and price points thus some people want a $20,000 car and some want a $60,000 SUV but when you have to make and sell the bulk of your fleet at $40,000 and up to make enough profit to stay in business there might be something wrong with your business model and overhead where you are located. Same for the Aerospace business. You don’t seem to mind that the entire regional aircraft industry that our domestic airlines depend is foreign based? I don’t even think there is an American design comparable to a Dash 8, ART42s, Canadair Regional Jet, Dornier 328 and Embraers. I guess you think we should keep buying UH1s instead of the EADS UH-72s? I don’t even think this country makes a comparable light utility helicopter today. Perhaps that’s the point you simply don’t want to accept. If you seriously think Obama is going to do anything positive in this direction you are mistaken.
Aurora| 1.21.09 @ 6:06PM
Sorry for the characterization, Thom.
No, I would not advocate buying UH1s instead of UH-72s, but I would have advocated a U.S. solution. As I recall, there were two Bell entrants and one MD. I thought the MD Explorer would have been up to the task but sadly the Eurocopter entrant was selected. Another hit to the defense infrastructure. As for regional aircraft, I lament the passing of this capability. I do not want to see it repeated with large jet manufacturing, nor can I see the wisdom of allowing a foreign manufacturer to use U.S. taxpayer funds to set up a manufacturing facility in the "dollar zone" to challenge our number one exporter. If they want to do that, let them finance it via the capital markets.
As for dead airframes, the 707 was produced until 1991. Are you implying Boeing gave them away to DOD?
I want my defense tax dollars spent here. The participation of Northrop Grumman on this euro tanker can't conceal the fact that at least 50% of the revenues will be repatriated to airbus.
Thom| 1.21.09 @ 7:52PM
Aurora, the bulk of the 707 fleet is over 40 years old world wide. The last commercial deliver was in 1982. Of about 1000 birds produced we have at least 600 of those. We bought most of the fleet in the late 50s and early 60s. No, Boeing did not give them away but the inflation adjusted cost is a lot less than a 767 now. There have been lots of conversions/upgrades but the bird’s viability ended over two decades ago from a support point of view.
I like the MD500/600 series but they can't compare to the UH-72. We just don't build anything in that capability range. We like "big" and "expensive" stuff pretty much. Hence no small regional aircraft to speak of; no upscale light utility helicopters either. I don't consider paying a foreign company USD for a product in any shape form or fashion using tax dollars to do anything out of the ordinary. We do this as a Nation all the time with everything else we buy. We buy lots of military grade stuff from our Allies you don’t see because it fits inside something you think is all American. Boeing's biggest problem here is that they want the specs to fit what they want to offer vs. the other way around. If you change the UH-72 specs to fit the MD600 then it probably would have won but the UH-72 carries more people/cargo etc. I think the Air Force wants a multiple purpose aircraft with growth potential that they can afford enough of. The A330 fits between the 767 and the 777 if you look closely. The 777 would be more capable than the A330 then but also destroy the most often used justification for the 767 (right sized), etc It would also cost a lot more than the A330 and I suspect more per ton carried too. From the Air Force logistics point of view it is going to come down to the net cargo capability for a given dollar amount all else being equal. We find ourselves in the unfortunate position of not having any other domestic commercial airline producers to compete with. I know it is popular to blame all this on EADS/Airbus being subsidized but it is also true that it cost them less to make what they do without that. The Air Force likes the KC-10 for what it can do the 707 airframes can’t. The KC-10 can do a lot more than the 767 airframe too but the KC-10 limitations (very long take off and landing run) and being a whole lot heavier than the A330 is truly limiting operationally. The 777 starts at where the DC-10 weight is also. I think the Air Force is trying to find the optimal mix of cargo and fueling capability and given the 767 on the low end and the 777 on the high end Boeing just doesn’t offer anything like the A330 mix. I don’t see a reason anyone would consider the A330 design for the other 707 based military platforms but like the C-17s replacing the C-141s, somebody’s trying real hard to do more with less funds and they’ve been on that track for a long time now. I don’t like that but I have to accept that dollars divided by units times capability wins. It’s not a fair world, never been.
Aurora| 1.22.09 @ 5:54AM
We can debate this ad nauseum. The tactical points you raise sound like they came from Northrop Grumman's PR release.
Do you think for a minute that the Obamaites are going to permit the media to bash them for outsourcing U.S. jobs to Toulouse, during a recession no less? Do you think for a second that Obama is going to want to defend the layoff of thousands of workers at Everett? Those are just two points. The majority of the criticism would come from within his own party!
IMVHO, this procurement will either be deferred or sole sourced to Boeing. Competing it will just ensure more political controversy that this administration just does not want. I suspect that while a couple of USAF generals will be disappointed most of their pilots will not.
If this offends anyone's sense of "fair play", then I would invite them to consider the A400, the engine for the A400, and Galileo.
Frankly, we need to reverse the trend of outsourcing our national defense.
Thom| 1.22.09 @ 5:48PM
Aurora, I’m already on record as saying I think this whole process has become political and moot. As for NG PR points, I have no idea what you are talking about. We’ve got 30 years of flight data on the 767 and 16 or so for the A330. There aren’t any secrets about what either airframe is or isn’t at this point. All you have to do is research the birds as they are and stay out of the political zone and urban legends. Since NG was ask to bid on this contract after the last corrupt sole source attempt at this and made it clear that they wanted nothing to do with this if it was going to just be for appearances and handed to Boeing anyway I do think there are some grounds for ethnics problems between one of the few Defense contractors left and the Government. Even large corporations don’t like to get used for political purposes any more than individuals do. When it is your government yanking you around it is usually called something else other than a “fair play” matter and there are often times legal and financial consequences. Given the bulk of the KC-135s will be around another 3 decades if push comes to shove a deferred contract will result in the same result for Boeing as an award for NG. The 767 production line will shut down unless Boeing can convince someone to replace the rest of the 707 non tanker fleet with 767 models. Seems like that would be a shoe in. If NG protests, the matter will drag on probably long enough in court given how the court system works well past the 767 shut down. Maybe we will get lucky and it will drag out long enough for Boeing to design and offer a 787 tanker. Maybe it could be assembled in Everett after the 767 line shuts down from all the parts made from around the world. I can’t do anything about the politics or emotion involved in this matter any more than I can do anything about the outsourcing of some of our defense infrastructure. That’s been going on since the 70s. What I can assure you in spades is if we start going down this sole source awards route without fixing the underlying structure for it, the long term trend that has been going on now for almost two decades will result in essentially the same thing you wish to avoid. Outsourcing won’t be the problem, no new contracts due to shear unit costs escalations or such limited production runs as to make the whole industry moot. Half the industry has already had to merge or diversify into non defense areas to stay afloat with what limited new stuff is being awarded. Sole sourcing isn’t going to solve or reverse this process. I’ll be long gone when this bird comes home to roost.
Oldefarte| 2.7.09 @ 11:36AM
Ouin is entirely correct in his analysis of this issue. These comments just appeared in the 2/8/09 Mobile Register [ 'U.S. Sens. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, and Jeff Sessions, R-Mobile, said they're not inclined to compromise. "I'm still unhappy we don't have the contract after a clear victory (last year)," Sessions said late Thursday. "We offered the best aircraft at the best price to the taxpayer. That should be the standard for a decision — not political interference." ']. Most of the comments concerning Quin's article are informative but irrelevant, as this should ONLY be about building the best plane in consideration of the least possible governmental/taxpayer price/cost of same. POLITICS should not be an issue, but SHAMEFULLY IS. Both Northrop and Boeing would build an adequate plane, but the difference in price/cost dictates that the former should be awarded the contract. What has happened is that Boeing's much higher cost/price is being swept under the carpet due to its political positioning as a Washington[state] and BIG LABOR traditional contriburtor to Democrats. Since Obama, Emmanuel and Gates all have political/residential ties to same, Boeing is using its political power to stay in the contest. If Boeing receives the contract due to Obama [in Blogo/Daley/Chicago machine typical political style] playing footsie with them, the American taxpayer will be the loser!!!!
Trackback| 5.13.09 @ 1:07AM
Replica Model Ships, on Replica Model Ships, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 10.8.09 @ 8:02AM
Pentagon in the Tanker | America Watches Obama links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 10.9.09 @ 10:54PM
Pentagon and Boeing continuing shenanigans « Whistleblower Support Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
kjhkhj| 11.16.09 @ 1:11AM
M2TS Video Converter,
M2TS Video Converter
ghfg| 12.29.09 @ 4:44AM
iPod to Mac Transfer,
iPod to Mac Transfer
gfdgd| 1.11.10 @ 1:07AM
FLV to WMV Converter,
Free FLV to WMV converter
kjlkj| 3.1.10 @ 2:05AM
DVD to iTouch Converter Mac,
Convert DVD to iPod Touch
Wangsir| 4.3.10 @ 3:19AM
Blu ray Ripper for Mac is the latest software that allows Mac users to rip Blu ray DVD on ther Mac OS X
Poptropica| 4.8.10 @ 8:57PM
First, kids create a character. After selecting whether to play as a boy or a girl Poptropica , they are assigned a name. Each character's appearance is randomly generated to start with; kids have the option to change almost all of their avatar's physical attributes, such as facial features and clothing. This character can be saved, via a password system, for use in future game-play sessions.
Then, kids enter Poptropica , a virtual world dotted with individual islands. Each island has its own theme, and its own adventure for players to complete. For example, "Time-Tangled Island" is a time-traveling adventure in which players must return objects and characters to their historically accurate periods, while "Spy Island" is a comical thriller with lots of futuristic gadgets. Each has a distinct storyline that is not related to those of the other islands.
Besides the single-player adventure, each island features common rooms, in which poptropica players can play standalone games against other people. These are primarily short, simple, reflex-based games, such as a skydiving competition in which the first person to touch the ground safely wins, or a basketball shooting competition in which the hoop is rising and falling. Players are given a star ranking based on their win-loss record.
Poptropica| 4.8.10 @ 8:57PM
First, kids create a character. After selecting whether to play as a boy or a girl Poptropica , they are assigned a name. Each character's appearance is randomly generated to start with; kids have the option to change almost all of their avatar's physical attributes, such as facial features and clothing. This character can be saved, via a password system, for use in future game-play sessions.
Then, kids enter Poptropica , a virtual world dotted with individual islands. Each island has its own theme, and its own adventure for players to complete. For example, "Time-Tangled Island" is a time-traveling adventure in which players must return objects and characters to their historically accurate periods, while "Spy Island" is a comical thriller with lots of futuristic gadgets. Each has a distinct storyline that is not related to those of the other islands.
Besides the single-player adventure, each island features common rooms, in which poptropica players can play standalone games against other people. These are primarily short, simple, reflex-based games, such as a skydiving competition in which the first person to touch the ground safely wins, or a basketball shooting competition in which the hoop is rising and falling. Players are given a star ranking based on their win-loss record.
Green car | 4.6.12 @ 1:00PM
Green cars