$35 billion Air Force tanker order to EADS/Northrop ???

[oddlycalm]

Airbus bailout (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080301/pl_nm/usa_airforce_tanker_congress_dc;_ylt=AmT4Bzxh896rH k6gJjN0S2N34T0D) Yup, I'll take 179 of them Airbus outfits and 2 buckets of the extra crispy. :gomer:

oc

[nrc]

Hard to believe the Air Force would make such a controversial choice without good reason. Honestly, it sounds like Boeing may have blown it by picking an old platform (767) that they had capacity on.

I sure don't want a Scarebus full of jet fuel orbiting over my house, but it may be better overall if it helps keep Northrop Grumman in the game.

[Spicoli]

huh? :gomer:

surprisingly, i have to say. wtf are you talking aboooot.

[nrc]

huh? :gomer:

surprisingly, i have to say. wtf are you talking aboooot.

Clearly you're lost. The thread you want is here (http://www.offcamber.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14202).

[ferrarigod]

i was in mobile 2 years ago and they were really looking forward to the program. i gave them not a chance in hell, but AF forums had the Airbi proposal as the better one as well.

There is so much politics in the AF with the F-22 program, cutting funding(in relation to other ground support/navy programs for iraq/afg), and reported misleading details into the F-15A/C saga, things are not getting better for the AF.

i need more details on the deal before i'd say what would make me happy, any one have any info on the upgrades to both planes and such?

[indyfan31]

Didn't really expect this since Boeing stock was going up thursday on the expectation that they would get the contract. Sounds like the Gov'mint is still pissed of at Boeing for the shenanigans that Micheal Sears and Darleen Druyun pulled a few years ago.
What would make me happy is if every one of those politicians that approved this got voted out of office.

[cameraman]

The people that approved it are not elected.

[devilmaster]

Clearly you're lost. The thread you want is here (http://www.offcamber.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14202).

shoulda picked the colon cleansing thread ;)

[coolhand]

I am surprised too.

truth is that This proposal came a tough time for Boeing. The 787 in the future will be a perfect Tanker Candidate. However that is a few years off and the AF wants it now. I guess the 777 was too big? The A-330 just was the right size.

[eiregosod]

The Italian govt pays for Boeing. Karma is a

edit. maybe prince Bandar was threatening more terrorism if they didnt go with Airbus.

[KLang]

I hope someone steps in and changes this. IMO we need to keep this spending at home.

[Ankf00]

Boeing shot themselves in the foot with their shenanigans 5 years ago. Airbus has been lobbying for this w/ northrop pretty damn hard the whole while

[nrc]

I hope someone steps in and changes this. IMO we need to keep this spending at home.

I agree in principle, but how do you weigh the trade off between defense capability and jobs? Especially when a major part of Boeing's problem with this bid is that they have no capacity. Boeing has a seven year backlog of orders and it's unlikely that anyone is going to lose their job because of this.


Issaquah-based aerospace analyst Scott Hamilton said he doubts anyone working on the 767 line or the tanker project will lose a job because of the failure to win the new contract.

In fact, Boeing officials told SPEEA on Friday that none of the engineering or technical workers associated with the project will be laid off, SPEEA spokesman Bill Dugovich said. “The engineers will go to work on the 787 or the 777 upgrade or new 737 project,” Hamilton predicted.

The two assembly bays at the Everett plant where the 767 is built could be converted to another 787 production line, Hamilton said. The 787 has now garnered 860 orders.

Boeing’s total airliner backlog now stands at 3,458 orders. At today’s production rates, Boeing production lines could be working at full steam for more than seven years to reduce that to zero even if the company received no new orders during those seven years.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/front/topstories/story/297027.html

[coolhand]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/353250_tanker01.html

What are they so unhappy about? "Damn furriners taking our union jobs. "

Anyway, this is a good message to Boeing not to take these contracts for granted. I am still surprised they were allowed to take over MD.

[oddlycalm]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/353250_tanker01.html

What are they so unhappy about? "Damn furriners taking our union jobs. " Right, because the folks in Toulouse have no labor unions.:rolleyes: Where I grew up we called government support of people that were lazy or incompetent welfare. EADS has demonstrated it is both.

Beyond the initial $35 billion order this contract is really worth closer to $100 billion when follow on orders, parts and support are all factored it. Without this EADS was on the ropes of insolvency, which is where their chronically incompetent management deserved to be. Suddenly that picture has changed. Now, the chronic incompetency of EADS management is compensated for and the company continues as if none of that had ever happened. We, the US taxpayers, get to depend on this incompetently managed supplier for a mission critical aircraft for decades to come. :thumdown: One more government artificially propping what, had it been left to fend for itself, was a dead horse.

Airbus establishing a first rate make-ready facility in North America paid for with US taxpayer dollars is a salient long term issue. Not only does it expand their capacity through no cost to them, but it allows them to offer services on the commercial side that they would have never been able to achieve on their own. Not just because they were financially unable to do it but because their own unions would have never allowed it to happen were it not to satisfy a US military contract.

oc

[cameraman]

Yeah sure that is the first thing that was on the Air Force's mind was propping up a European labor union. Get a grip. Boeing did not get the bid because their bid their 767 variant does not meet the mission requirements as well as the A330 variant does. Boeing screwed themselves with the attitude that the Air Force would never take an Airbus no matter how poorly Boeing met the design requirements.

Think for a minute, just how bad would the Boeing proposal have to be for the Air Force to feel it is worth enduring the political firestorm that they know will result from an Airbus order.

[nrc]

Add to that the fact that Boeing opened the door for this through their own incompetency handling the bid the first time around. In spite of that blunder, and shortcomings in their bid there seems to be an aura of entitlement around the reaction to this and I'm not sure that's really the best thing for our military.

[dando]

Sadly, it appears Boeing got what it deserved. :(

-Kevin

[OW]

Tis ok.....It's only 35 $BILL!-ion ... I already wrote the first check... and will continue and continue...and continue...

[KLang]

I agree in principle, but how do you weigh the trade off between defense capability and jobs? Especially when a major part of Boeing's problem with this bid is that they have no capacity. Boeing has a seven year backlog of orders and it's unlikely that anyone is going to lose their job because of this.


http://www.thenewstribune.com/front/topstories/story/297027.html

Wouldn't they have added staff if they had won the contract?

I'll have to find some time to read up on this since I really don't know much about it. It just bugs me to think about my tax dollars going to Airbus.

[coolhand]

Sadly, it appears Boeing got what it deserved. :(

-Kevin

Yep this country should not have to rely on one bg plane maker
i

[Gnam]

LRm1aEvZgCo

Sucks for Boeing. But there was no way they were going to get the contract back after it was pulled. On the upside, it keeps the Europeans busy building support aircraft instead of weapons for Iran or China. :gomer:

[oddlycalm]

Yeah sure that is the first thing that was on the Air Force's mind was propping up a European labor union. Get a grip. Boeing did not get the bid because their bid their 767 variant does not meet the mission requirements as well as the A330 variant does. Boeing screwed themselves with the attitude that the Air Force would never take an Airbus no matter how poorly Boeing met the design requirements.

Think for a minute, just how bad would the Boeing proposal have to be for the Air Force to feel it is worth enduring the political firestorm that they know will result from an Airbus order. Sorry if my comment wasn't clear. I was replying to a comment about the Boeing machinist union and my point was that unions are a fact of life in Aerospace regardless of location, so his point is moot. The next sentence was aimed the incompetency of EADS management who we will be effectively propping up, hence the welfare for crappy management comment. I'm happy that Northrop will have something to do, but not happy at all that we will be underwriting the clowns at EADS, or depending on them got decades to come. What we are really talking about is $100 billion and 30+yrs in service. I don't disagree that Boeing shot itself in the groin. My concern is not that Boeing didn't get a contract they didn't deserve. They will be healthy regardless.

My other concern is strategic. I just don't consider Airbus and it's management a reliable supplier, particularly for such a large and long winded contract. What happens in the not unlikely event of EADS finally succeeding in flying Airbus into the ground? Northrop doesn't own the tooling to make A-330's. It could handle filling much of the service parts requirement, but not 100%, and it only takes one structural part to ground an airframe. Unless Northrop has access to 100% of the tooling, processes and drawings (which they don't) this is a strategic blunder IMO.

To understand this fully you have to know how many may re-fittings our KC-135's have undergone over the years at Wichita. Without the tooling and manufacturing processes that doesn't happen and you are buying new airplanes every time an airframe maxes out on landing cycles. Just one reason that hitching our wagon to EADS may prove problematic.

oc

[coolhand]

Reading on AIRBUS

http://jacno.com/an01.htm

http://jacno.com/za-an-inmo.htm

Sad we need to rely on them for defense needs.

Also, is Tolouse shutting down its 330 line to prepare for the 350? So this will soon almost be completely an NG thing.


Japan just got its KC-767s. That plane is already built, the 330 MRTT is not yet flying.

[Ankf00]

What happens in the not unlikely event of EADS finally succeeding in flying Airbus into the ground? Northrop doesn't own the tooling to make A-330's. It could handle filling much of the service parts requirement, but not 100%, and it only takes one structural part to ground an airframe. Unless Northrop has access to 100% of the tooling, processes and drawings (which they don't) this is a strategic blunder IMO.

so question regarding this, how do US airlines maintain their airbus fleets? They're not allowed to mfg parts for their planes?

[cameraman]

Like you couldn't see this one coming....


Boeing Co. deserves another chance to bid on the $35 billion U.S. Air Force aerial-tanker contract won by rival Northrop Grumman Corp., a government agency said.

"The Air Force had made a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition," the Government Accountability Office said today in Washington. "We therefore sustained Boeing's protest."

[ferrarigod]

i, for one, am shocked.


:gomer:

[oddlycalm]

so question regarding this, how do US airlines maintain their airbus fleets? They're not allowed to mfg parts for their planes?
Nah, most airline shops (UA, AA, NW, USA, etc.) do parts swap outs with a few able to recondition landing gear struts or similar, and the rest don't even do that. They don't even come close to have the equipment to rebuild, let alone build, major airframe structures. Why would they want to spend $ billion on that kind of facility when the manufacturer can supply them? And what manufacturer hands out manufacturing drawings and tooling to it's customers?

The OEM suppliers provide replacement parts and there are rebuilders that recondition them to spec. For structural stuff the airframe builder is pretty much it. Old airframes built in big numbers like the 727 and DC8 have active cottage industry support for salvage/used and recon parts, and even major structures, as they grind out their service lives in the 3rd world.

If the worst case scenario happens and Airbus croaks, or the air lanes are interrupted by conflict, some planes sit on the ground and the airline takes a big loss. If Airbus croaks some entity would eventually buy the assets and have a nice business supporting the existing fleet.

However, worst case if we can't fly our tankers is a whole different dimension. Having even a few down for a month in time of conflict would be disaster. Not the same stakes as a commercial operation at all.

Strategic reasons are a big part of the reason the EU wanted EADS in the first place, and they were right IMO, they just structured it poorly.

oc

[Ankf00]

Nah, most airline shops (UA, AA, NW, USA, etc.) do parts swap outs with a few able to recondition landing gear struts or similar, and the rest don't even do that. They don't even come close to have the equipment to rebuild, let alone build, major airframe structures. Why would they want to spend $ billion on that kind of facility when the manufacturer can supply them? And what manufacturer hands out manufacturing drawings and tooling to it's customers?

The OEM suppliers provide replacement parts and there are rebuilders that recondition them to spec. For structural stuff the airframe builder is pretty much it. Old airframes built in big numbers like the 727 and DC8 have active cottage industry support for salvage/used and recon parts, and even major structures, as they grind out their service lives in the 3rd world.

If the worst case scenario happens and Airbus croaks, or the air lanes are interrupted by conflict, some planes sit on the ground and the airline takes a big loss. If Airbus croaks some entity would eventually buy the assets and have a nice business supporting the existing fleet.

However, worst case if we can't fly our tankers is a whole different dimension. Having even a few down for a month in time of conflict would be disaster. Not the same stakes as a commercial operation at all.

Strategic reasons are a big part of the reason the EU wanted EADS in the first place, and they were right IMO, they just structured it poorly.

oc

that's what i thought. douche on HF who used to be at delta was claiming otherwise. corp fin guys == mega tools.

[oddlycalm]

that's what i thought. douche on HF who used to be at delta was claiming otherwise. corp fin guys == mega tools.
He either doesn't begin to understand what’s involved (likely) or he's simply lying to make his point.

That's one of the fundamental problems; money people that make decisions without understanding the life of program costs are. Ironically, it's the same bozos that make sure that maintenance budgets are cut to the bone without any understanding of what the medium to long term effect of that might be. :irked:

As a favor to a friend I tried to find a buyer for a massive bore grinder that Boeing bought for the MX missile program and used for exactly a week before the program was cancelled. Machines like that never come up for sale yet it took me 18 months and 2 budget cycles to finally move it to Northwest to grind landing gear struts for a fraction of what Boeing paid, and around 5% of what a new one would have cost in the mid-90's.

Northwest had been sending out all their struts to be refurbed since the company started in business, so this machine paid for itself on the first 747 strut. Plus, they no longer had to rig it, put it on a truck, ship it to Cleveland, wait in line to get it done, then ship it back and rig it again.

That was around 12yrs ago when the airlines were doing well. From what I hear the maintenance shops are having a hard time affording hand tools and toilet paper these days.

oc

[Gnam]

Recount now official. New rules, new judges, but don't worry it's all fair. They're doing it for the children, afterall. :gomer:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25607574

I guess this means Boeing wins the contract and hires Northrop to build some assemblies. Everyone is wins. :\

[nrc]

Anyone got a reader's digest version of the "mistakes" the Air Force made in selecting the winner? Besides losing the map that shows where Chicago and Toulouse are, I mean.

[dando]

Anyone got a reader's digest version of the "mistakes" the Air Force made in selecting the winner? Besides losing the map that shows where Chicago and Toulouse are, I mean.

http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/311344.htm


As explained below, we find that the agency’s selection of Northrop Grumman’s proposal as reflecting the best value to the government was undermined by a number of prejudicial errors that call into question the Air Force’s decision that Northrop Grumman’s proposal was technically acceptable and its judgment concerning the comparative technical advantages accorded Northrop Grumman’s proposal. In addition, we find a number of errors in the agency’s cost evaluation that result in Boeing displacing Northrop Grumman as the offeror with the lowest evaluated most probable life cycle costs to the government. Although we sustain Boeing’s protest on grounds related to these errors, we also deny many of Boeing’s challenges to the award.

Specifically, we sustain the protest, because we find that (1) the Air Force did not evaluate the offerors’ technical proposals under the key system requirements subfactor of the mission capability factor in accordance with the weighting established in the RFP’s evaluation criteria; (2) a key technical discriminator relied upon in the selection decision in favor of Northrop Grumman relating to the aerial refueling area of the key system requirements subfactor, was contrary to the RFP; (3) the Air Force did not reasonably evaluate the capability of Northrop Grumman’s proposed aircraft to refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing, tanker‑compatible aircraft using current Air Force procedures, as required by the RFP; (4) the Air Force conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing with respect to whether it had satisfied an RFP objective under the operational utility area of the key system requirements subfactor; (5) Northrop Grumman’s proposal took exception to a material solicitation requirement related to the product support subfactor; (6) the Air Force did not reasonably evaluate military construction (MILCON) costs associated with the offerors’ proposed aircraft consistent with the RFP; and (7) the Air Force unreasonably evaluated Boeing’s estimated non‑recurring engineering costs associated with its proposed system development and demonstration (SDD).

-Kevin

[cameraman]

I had no idea "offeror" was a word:saywhat:

[coolhand]

If they did everything right the first time (Boeing and the Air Force are to blame) we would probably have these things by now.

Question:

KC-767s are already flying for the JASDF. How much different will USAF versions be? Will they be able to turn them out faster than the KC-45?

[oddlycalm]

KC-767s are already flying for the JASDF. How much different will USAF versions be? Will they be able to turn them out faster than the KC-45?
Not different enough to make big delays, just engines, avionics and the usual customer spec stuff, and there won't be the endless debug phase either.

To me the bigger question is why the Air Force didn't have Boeing quote based on their 777 platform? I guess I must be an idiot but asking Boeing to base a new program bid request on a 1980's vintage airframe seems, um, retarded. What's more, one of the reasons they claim they went with Northrup/Airbus is the larger capacity. :confused: It's not just that they screwed with their own bid process, but that they didn't ask Boeing to quote the right airplane.

Not sure if it's true but I have heard rumors that Boeing plans to big the 777 this time around.

IMO the Air Force programs have always been managed the bid process and programs pretty well, so this one really stands out. The one I recall best was the B1 which came in under budget because of the solid program management. I guess those folks must have retired...

oc

[coolhand]

Don't forget the CSAR-X program. People felt Boeing unfairly got that one too.

[stroker]

Something on the local radio this morning about there being an announcement at the Farnborough Air Show that the primary Boeing construction would happen in Quebec and not Wichita? Take it for what it's worth.

[Wheel-Nut]

Clearly you're lost. The thread you want is here (http://www.offcamber.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14202).


I feel honored! :D

[Gnam]

Boeing now says they might be busy on bid day,
but hopes the Air Force didn't go to a lot of trouble just for them.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/26142805

I didn't know Boeing's CEO was a woman. :p



*here's the original Aviation Week story but the formatting is all jacked up.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/BOEING081108.xml

[oddlycalm]

Officially dead. Gates put a bullet in it's head and put it out of it's misery.

Program cancelled (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0912/p02s01-usmi.html)

oc

[oddlycalm]

Nearly a decade into this process the Air Force manages to do it's best to scuttle the process. Again. Those KC-135's from the 60's are gonna fly forever...:gomer:

Airforce sends bid info to competitors (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101120/ap_on_bi_ge/us_air_force_tanker_mixup),

oc

[Ankf00]

EADS tanker boom quits on the job, just up and fell into the ocean.

oc would have a choicely worded post right about now... :D

http://defensetech.org/2011/01/20/substantial-piece-of-refueling-boom-falls-off-eads-tanker/


Oops. A “substantial” part of the aerial refueling boom aboard an Airbus A330 MRTT tanker built for the Royal Australian Air Force broke off and fell into the Atlantic during a recent flight test.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2011/01/20/substantial-piece-of-refueling-boom-falls-off-eads-tanker/#ixzz1Buwmf3Td
Defense.org

:rofl:

[KLang]

CNN headline says Boeing wins the contract.

[Gnam]

How long before an appeal is filed? :gomer:


If you like the soap opera of the Air Force tanker contract, you'll love the 'Dream Machine' by Richard Whittle. :irked:

http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/7945/asmthedreammachinecover.jpg

[KLang]

How long before an appeal is filed? :gomer:


Tomorrow morning would be my bet.

[stroker]

why didn't I buy Boeing stock last week?

Oh, that's right, I don't have any money...

:cry:

[cameraman]

It is up like 3%. You didn't miss much.

[Ankf00]

the real bump in the price will come when the tanker's slated for its first test flights and then when it's declared operational

[cameraman]

the real bump in the price will come when the tanker's slated for its first test flights and then when it's declared operational

After a few billion in overruns and a couple of years of bits not fitting...

[SurfaceUnits]

http://ctwatchdog.com/2011/02/25/inside-story-on-dods-boeing-air-force-tanker-deal-opinion-analysis

[cameraman]

EADS/Northrup said Friday that it would not protest the awarding of the contract to Boeing.

Looks like it is finally done.