US Air Tankers deal to be re bid....

[Shugster]

And the fcuking yanks talk about BAe's business tactics!!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7462665.stm

If they get the tanker deal back then they should butt out of our Eurofighter deal.
DT_Xtremez_32:

 

[Dave-exfairy]

You gotta hand it to the spams, they look after their own. As above, if they get the deal back, then get your feckin noses out of our deals, tw@ts!!

 

[Scaley brat]

Smoke and mirrors, this is just a way of keeping the contract in the states. I wouldn't mind betting this is all mixed in with Broon's idea of extra taxes for long haul flights. Yet again America wants Europe to sit up and beg....
Sit....
Roll over....
DT_Xtremez_25:

 

[Ex-Bay]

A report in a military on-line journal quoted Boeing as wanting to re-negotiate parts of the new Transport aircraft (KC27) contract. The USAF only wants 78 and Boeing wants to make them at a new plant in Florida. Other participants in the contract (such as L3) are not to sure.

I wonder if the two events are related. The KC767 is worth a lot more to Boeing. . . . .

 

[Talk Wrench]

However poor you may think Europe's defence industry is, at the moment it is a lot stronger than America's.

The MRTT project is based upon a reliable airframe and engine platform and the yanks don't have anything to rival it ( Range and efficiency wise). The reason Boeing are kicking off is because a new tanker for them will have to be a completely new project. The Americans are effectively buying off the shelf with MRTT and boeing doesn't like it one bit.

Now A330 is already approved for flight to/ from/over America by its own FAA. (ETOPS I think? please correct me if I am wrong.)

A military conversion is peanuts cost wise and there are already trained civil A330 pilots who can fly it Air National Guard style.

The A330 is already up and running and the Senate would be daft to let this deal fall through considering America's financial woes at present.

If Boeing were to get the green light for a new Tanker, it would be at least 10 to 15 years away, require start up subsidies from the Whitehouse and then it would have to sell to an outside market besides the US mil.

As an example of a start up subsidy, the Airbus A380 recieved 32 BILLION EURO (£25 Billion) to get the project up and flying ( pardon the joke).


MRTT is the best Tanker aquisition for the UK, Europe and America and gives NATO a greater interoperable AAR capability.


TW

 

[CodeMonkey]

Like a lot of people have said they cry foul as it has not been awarded to an american contractor(keeping it in country) and although the organisation have criticised the bidding process they have not said that the deal is bad.

 

[metimmee]

However poor you may think Europe's defence industry is, at the moment it is a lot stronger than America's.

The MRTT project is based upon a reliable airframe and engine platform and the yanks don't have anything to rival it ( Range and efficiency wise). The reason Boeing are kicking off is because a new tanker for them will have to be a completely new project. The Americans are effectively buying off the shelf with MRTT and boeing doesn't like it one bit.

Now A330 is already approved for flight to/ from/over America by its own FAA. (ETOPS I think? please correct me if I am wrong.)

A military conversion is peanuts cost wise and there are already trained civil A330 pilots who can fly it Air National Guard style.

The A330 is already up and running and the Senate would be daft to let this deal fall through considering America's financial woes at present.

If Boeing were to get the green light for a new Tanker, it would be at least 10 to 15 years away, require start up subsidies from the Whitehouse and then it would have to sell to an outside market besides the US mil.

As an example of a start up subsidy, the Airbus A380 recieved 32 BILLION EURO (£25 Billion) to get the project up and flying ( pardon the joke).


MRTT is the best Tanker aquisition for the UK, Europe and America and gives NATO a greater interoperable AAR capability.


TW

Lets not forget that it is widely believed if the EADS deal is a asuccess it could lead to a $100Bn deal as the fleet is replaced.

 

[Ex-Bay]

It seems that the US congress has upheld the bealing & squeelin' from the boys in Boeing, but the report is not binding. The USAF has not yet said exactly what it will do in the wake of this report.

Here we go, lads, Politics strikes again.

::

Incidentally, are Airbus letting Northrop Grumman make the Wings?

 

[Scaley brat]

It seems that the US congress has upheld the bealing & squeelin' from the boys in Boeing, but the report is not binding. The USAF has not yet said exactly what it will do in the wake of this report.

Here we go, lads, Politics strikes again.

::

Incidentally, are Airbus letting Northrop Grumman make the Wings?

You'd kind of hope THAT is under review too wouldn't you ! Two can play at that game ! ::/:

 

[MrMasher]

I dont know much about this story apart from whats in the link. I may have got it wrong.

What happened to the customers decision?

 

[Ex-Bay]

I dont know much about this story apart from whats in the link. I may have got it wrong.

What happened to the customer's decision?

When the customer is the USAF, overseen by lots of committees, senators, congressmen and anyone else you can think of, the Customer's decision is not too easy to make.
We await further news with interest.
If Boeing win a re-bid, I wonder what reaction there'll be from the EU /GB ?





DT_Xtremez_44:

 

[MrMasher]

Sounds like us then. RAF wants xxxxxx, everybody else steps in and gives us xx.DT_Xtremez_44:

 

[welshwizard]

I have to admit my gast was deffinately flabbered when I first heard on the Welsh news that all those jobs in North Wales were safe because of the USAF's incredible decision to go with the Airbus option.
It sparked a huge debate among us RAF Air-to-Air guys and not one of us believed this deal would actually go through to completion.
With the US economy in the state it's in, it would be political suicide for congress to let this kind of massive contract go abroad.
It was a huge kick in the slats for Boeing, but the back-tracking has already started and we all know where it will end up.
WW

 

[Rikster]

However poor you may think Europe's defence industry is, at the moment it is a lot stronger than America's.

The MRTT project is based upon a reliable airframe and engine platform and the yanks don't have anything to rival it ( Range and efficiency wise). The reason Boeing are kicking off is because a new tanker for them will have to be a completely new project. The Americans are effectively buying off the shelf with MRTT and boeing doesn't like it one bit.

Now A330 is already approved for flight to/ from/over America by its own FAA. (ETOPS I think? please correct me if I am wrong.)

A military conversion is peanuts cost wise and there are already trained civil A330 pilots who can fly it Air National Guard style.

The A330 is already up and running and the Senate would be daft to let this deal fall through considering America's financial woes at present.

If Boeing were to get the green light for a new Tanker, it would be at least 10 to 15 years away, require start up subsidies from the Whitehouse and then it would have to sell to an outside market besides the US mil.

As an example of a start up subsidy, the Airbus A380 recieved 32 BILLION EURO (£25 Billion) to get the project up and flying ( pardon the joke).


MRTT is the best Tanker aquisition for the UK, Europe and America and gives NATO a greater interoperable AAR capability.


TW

The A330 is ETOPS as is the 767, I don't know why they didn't offer the 767-400 or 777 as a tanker option, both being superior to the A330????????????

 

[Ex-Bay]

The A330 is ETOPS as is the 767, I don't know why they didn't offer the 767-400 or 777 as a tanker option, both being superior to the A330????????????

Not knowing what ETOPS is, the following may be a load of bolleux:
The A330 is flying very well and will not cost as much as the 767 to convert. A lot of the work will be done in the 'States. It's simply a question of Where, (in the US) the work is to be done and who's congressman can raise the biggest stink. It will go further, and Boeing will have ot do a lot of work to the 767 airframe to make it suitable.

This is my understanding of the reports I've seen.
[I'll get me coat. . . . . . . ]

DT_Xtremez_42:

 

[Ex-Bay]

It seems that Northrop-Grumman are not letting the grass grow too quickly:-


http://www.flightglobal.com/article...rst-flight-75-days-from-initial-assembly.html


I wonder how much of the 'plane was made in the USA, or was it shipped out as a kit of parts?

 

[Ex-Bay]

More groanings in the pit:

http://www.military.com/news/article/pentagon-to-reopen-tanker-bidding.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl

 

[Shugster]

Even if it goes to a European firm after this it will be re-bid again until the 'Right' contractor gets it.

Can anyone guess who the right contractor is? And where abouts in the US they're based?
DT_Xtremez_15:

The decision will be based on politics and votes rather than value for money.

 

[Ex-Bay]

Perhaps the focus on new planes is expanding, or, at least, shifting.
It seems that someone's eyes are firmly on another ball; a replacement for the C130:-

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/53297/New-US-target-for-EADS

Even Congress wouldn't let by a fiddle on BOTH would they?

:S

 

[Ex-Bay]

Here we go again, lads:-


Before the Pentagon could brief the press or explain its amended bid for the $35 billion tanker program to the public, Boeing's most powerful congressional supporter was crying foul. Rep. Norm Dicks' office issued a statement at least an hour before the Pentagon's director of procurement unveiled the new draft request for proposal (RFP), saying that "there is an obvious change inserted into the System Requirements Document" which would favor the larger plane offered by Northrop Grumman. Dicks' office said that the revised tanker RFP "clearly favors the larger aircraft even though it is not necessarily connected to any real-world use of tanker." Dicks is one of the most powerful appropriators in Congress, where the Washington lawmaker is the Nr. 2 Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.




Full details at:


http://www.military.com/news/article/lawmaker-charges-bias-on-new-tanker-bid.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl


I wonder how long this row will go on. Presumably they'll run out of spares first. . . .




DT_Xtremez_44: