Boeing not chosen for tanker contract with US Air Force

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11319

Quote:

Boeing not chosen for tanker contract with US Air Force

The U.S. Air Force has chosen a competitor’s bid over one submitted by Boeing to build replacement tankers for 179 of the Air Force’s aging KC-135 fleet of air-to-air refueling tankers.

A proposal by Northrop Grumman and Airbus was announced as the winning bid by Air Force officials in Washington, D.C.

Under the contract, Northrop and Airbus will build the KC-45A. The contract is the second largest military procurement contract in history. It’s a contract whose value could eventually reach $100 billion.

“We believe we had a great proposal, we believe we had the proposal that deserved to win,” said Tanker Program Manager Mark McGraw.

“I want to thank the many, many workers across Integrated Defense Systems and Boeing Commercial Airplanes who gave countless hours to the team in this effort. They should all consider themselves winners and can hold their heads high despite this decision,” McGraw said.

“We believed we listened to the customer, and worked diligently to understand their requirements and put together what we thought was the winning proposal,” said Bev Wyse, vice president for 767 Airplane Production.

Under its proposal, Boeing would have built KC-767 airplanes into replacements for the Air Force’s older KC-135s. Boeing said its platform carried more fuel, and three times as much cargo and passengers as the KC-135 and burns 24 percent less fuel than the competitor’s proposed platform.

Mike · **Joined:** Tue May 04, 2004 8:54 am **Posts:** 3329

Good call! The better solution for the USAF's requirement won, rather than the most politically expedient one.

Old SAR pilot · **Posted:** Fri Feb 29, 2008 5:50 pm

Second the good call! They really needed to make a decision NOW, before any more of the -135s went unserviceable.

david layne · **Joined:** Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:02 pm **Posts:** 64

As a resident of Mobile, where they will be built I cannot express how pleased I am for our local economy.

EDowning · **Posted:** Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:09 pm

Mike wrote:

Quote:

Good call! The better solution for the USAF's requirement won, rather than the most politically expedient one.

I am curious how you could possibly know that.

262crew · **Joined:** Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:24 pm **Posts:** 877

David the A330 is made in France not in Mobile AL!

b29flteng · **Posted:** Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:39 pm

"Scare Buses"!!!! Oh Nooooo. Not many folks in our airline, who flys quite a few like them. I didn't when I worked on them.

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11319

The 767 is built in the Seattle area and the tanker mods are done in Wichita. Italy and Japan are the customers for that aircraft. This decision sees the A330 mod work done in Mobile, but the airplane itself is built overseas. Airbus has never even built a tanker aircraft before, neither has Northrop that I recall.

No question that this is a net loss to the US economy. With the weakness of the US dollar I am surprised that this deal makes economic sense for the USAF, but I am certainly no economist (just ask my wife).

I do not see a vote for John McCain in my future...

Elroy13 · **Posted:** Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:43 pm

Well...I think its a bad choice made by the Air Force. :roll:

rwdfresno · **Posted:** Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:51 pm

I did an internet search for KC-45A and this was the first picture that showed up.

RNDMTRS4EVR · **Posted:** Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:08 pm

Hey guys it will most likely get screwed up,

just like the replacement helicopter fleet for the President, Our wonderful goverment is just throwing away our tax dollars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :twisted:

Ok I'm done back to warbirds.

Scott

Mike · **Joined:** Tue May 04, 2004 8:54 am **Posts:** 3329

EDowning wrote:

I am curious how you could possibly know that.

Well Eric, I had a long discussion a few months back with a friend who is a boom operator on KC-10s and had seen the mock-ups and proposals from both bidders. As one of the guys doing the job day in, day out, I trust his judgement when he said that the KC-30 was not just better, but a WAAAAY better solution.

Mike · **Joined:** Tue May 04, 2004 8:54 am **Posts:** 3329

bdk wrote:

............Airbus has never even built a tanker aircraft before.........

the Australians, Germans and Canadians might disagree with you there Brandon. :wink:

david layne · **Joined:** Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:02 pm **Posts:** 64

262crew wrote:

David the A330 is made in France not in Mobile AL!

From what I understand the aircraft parts of the KC 45A will be built in many different countries and assembled in Mobile. I did not state that the A330 was built in Mobile.

slinky · **Posted:** Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:24 pm

The shame of this whole situation is that while this whole thing drags on, the warfighter needs the hardware. My whole office scrambles every day to support the KC-135 tankers and every day is another set of problems. My hats off to the maintainers in the field and the crews that keep them flying. Our job of finding parts and workarounds is easy compared to theirs.

Also, this helps dodge any finger pointing back to the KC-767 scandal. Boeing has had it's problems, as do all big companies, but we have a working rapport with them and know our way around each other. The outside vendors that supply replacement parts will also be influenced by this decision. I'm afraid it will have far reaching results that cannot be foreseen at this point....

This puts us in the same position that all the Foreign Military Sales countries are in with us. We can pick and choose whom we want to support on the KC-135s that we sold them....and if they don't do what we like we can withdraw engineering, tech, and logistics support! Airbus could do the same....

Warbird Information Exchange

Boeing not chosen for tanker contract with US Air Force

Who is online