After a decade of embarrassing missteps and disputes, the Pentagon handed a job-rich $35-billion contract to Chicago-based Boeing Co. to build a fleet of 179 aerial refueling tankers that carries the promise of work for an estimated 50,000 aerospace employees.
In an announcement that took industry experts by surprise, word came down late Thursday that Boeing had bested archrival Airbus and its parent company European Aeronautic Defense & Space Co., or EADS.
The fight between Boeing and EADS was bitter and hard fought. The lucrative tanker contract is believed to be the last new major Pentagon purchase for years to come.
"Boeing was the clear winner," said William J. Lynn, deputy secretary of Defense, in making the announcement. "We went through a process that evaluated war-fighting requirements, evaluated price, evaluated life-cycle costs. And the process yielded the result it did with Boeing winning."
The question on everybodys mind is will EADS appeal the decision.
Source: Los Angeles Times
Gravity always wins!
I don't get the basing argument at all on the tanker side - of course in Afghanistan now the USAF is operating smaller tankers out of tight airfields, is it? No, of course it isn't, they're based further away at bigger sites, as is the case with the RAF's aircraft. Will the take-off run be massively more for the A330 than the KC-46A? We don't know, because Boeing has never disclosed any of the key data for its developmental design - and the USAF can look forward to accepting the risk on that front.
And less manoeuverable for combat evasion measures? Where on earth is the USAF planning to put its aircraft up? Has this ever been an issue in living memory for a tanker crew? I'd love to hear the when and where if so.
Fair enough, the USAF went for an aircraft as close to the KC-135 as possible, and its requirements were intentionally set for a Boeing win (smaller aircraft = cheaper aircraft = job done). Let's not try to flatter them with nonsense operational needs that don't stand up to scrutiny in real-world conditions though!
How did the TSR2 get into the equation?
It was a technological dead end. Its systems were imaginitive but beyond the capabilities of the British to produce and make work, it's engines were too powerful for the airframe which shook it to bits when they werent trying to set fire to the aircraft.
I woudn't want to have been a USAF pilot over Vietnam in a TSR 2 or trying to get to Berlin and back in a Spitfire.
The USA suceeded with the F-111 where the British failed, but the Europeans woudnt buy it for nationalistic reasons so they produced their own little copy of it called the Tornado which despite being decades newer still got shot down in significant numbers over Iraq unlike the F-111.
Europe has for years tried to re-establish the technological lead it held in the 1920's but still lags behin the USA and with the occasional exceptions such as Hawk the Viscount and the superb Falcon and Mirage series cant really cut it.
And that is the core reason the USAF went with the Boeing propsal
Sprucemoose: I don't get the basing argument at all on the tanker side - of course in Afghanistan now the USAF is operating smaller tankers out of tight airfields, is it? No, of course it isn't, they're based further away at bigger sites, as is the case with the RAF's aircraft. Will the take-off run be massively more for the A330 than the KC-46A? We don't know, because Boeing has never disclosed any of the key data for its developmental design - and the USAF can look forward to accepting the risk on that front. And less manoeuverable for combat evasion measures? Where on earth is the USAF planning to put its aircraft up? Has this ever been an issue in living memory for a tanker crew? I'd love to hear the when and where if so. Fair enough, the USAF went for an aircraft as close to the KC-135 as possible, and its requirements were intentionally set for a Boeing win (smaller aircraft = cheaper aircraft = job done). Let's not try to flatter them with nonsense operational needs that don't stand up to scrutiny in real-world conditions though!
During the Vietnam War, a number of tankers crossed into North Vietnam by a considerable distance to help damaged returning aircraft. They came under AA fire and in at least one case a fighter was sighted (however the MIG CAP fighters chased it off). In a many of these cases, the tanker engaged in violent maneuvering to avoid the AA fire.
Several KC-135s were occasionally based at a very far forward base with a short hard-packed dirt strip to support damaged returning planes (quick response).
In another case, an F-105 with punctured tanks ran out of fuel and was gliding down; a KC-135 maneuvered briskly, over took the descending fighter and hooked up transferring fuel. It was later guessed that for every 100 pounds of fuel transferred, 90%leaked out and only 10% fed the engine to generate enough hydraulic pressure to keep it controllable. They stayed hooked up and maneuvered together (great formation flying!) until the F-105 was on final and then disconnected.
Each of these situations required good maneuverability and since the tankers will last for 40+ years, there may be circumstances in which such maneuverability will be required - no tall situations, but some. Recall also that the KC-135 is directly descended from Boeing's prototype 360-80 (the 707 was a derivative). Recall also Tex Johnson's complete roll of the -80 at a Seattle boat race ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_khhzuFlE )
Ebeneezer, your pragmatic standpoint on the tanker competition will be appreciated by many but there seems to be a nasty whiff of UK/Euro bashing in those nuggets of aviation history and nostalgia which you kindly furnish us with on this forum from time to time….some of which I believe to be "off-topic" and opportunist in an attempt to justify the selection of the KC-46A.
On a wider point I don't think I have ever read so much bluster and sophistry regarding the outcome of a defense competition and many like you seemed to have turned themselves into 'Armchair Defense Procurement Specialists' safe behind the security blanket provided by your LCD screen .
At the end of the day somebody in the US knows what the right choice was, perhaps…let’s hope they come forward shortly.
Whoa there Global Ranger, maybe it's a good thing to have discussions, whether they are good or bad, on these matters. That's what this forum is here for.
This is unfortunately a subject with a decision that was always going to be controversal whichever way it went.
I tend to agree with Dragon Lady. I think it is fairly safe to say that the folks writing in this forum are passionate about aviation. We all have opinions and are making statments/comments based on what we know - and some is based of favoritism or a nationalistic viewpoint. Hey, that's human nature. But in the end, I bet we could all sit at a table in a bar (or pub) and share a few beers, laughs and stories. Yes, I may have an opinion that differs from some of you, but I think we could all agree that we want the warfighter, the individual putting their life on the line for their country, to have the best piece of equipment for the mission. (here's where the 330 fans say they picked the wrong airplane and the 767 fans say they picked the right one) :)
I am sure you are right and would like to think that no one is getting too worked up on this, its just a case of a bit of banter from both sides of the pond!
Although i suspect that after a few beers down the local pub the A330 would be proved to be the better aeroplane!
Victor:Although i suspect that after a few beers down the local pub the A330 would be proved to be the better aeroplane!
The A330 would certainly win a drinking competition, able to consume more and transport it further off the premises at the same time
Ok who's buying the drinks Mark77 ? I'm sure Ebeneezer won't be
Global Ranger: Victor:Although i suspect that after a few beers down the local pub the A330 would be proved to be the better aeroplane! The A330 would certainly win a drinking competition, able to consume more and transport it further off the premises at the same time Ok who's buying the drinks Mark77 ? I'm sure Ebeneezer won't be
Ahhh ... the local pub argument. Let's pour a pint and talk this over.
Sure, the KC-45A can carry more fuel (let's call it beer). It can also fly farther than the KC-46A. However, the customer must eventually pay up on the pub tab and it might be rather expensive. If the customer is broke, the final tab might mean that he has to stop feeding the baby and defer other critical expenses (like the rent) to pay for the beer truck contract.
If he has to buy or rent a new home with a larger garage because the beer truck will not fit in his current garage, that's another cost that he has to pay.
In the current situation, the customer defined the need over 10 years ago (larger than the KC-135, but still fitting the existing infrastructure). This was only expanded to allow a larger aircraft at the strong insistence of the powerful Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama (where Airbus promised to build a facility). Only then was the specification expanded to allow the larger A-330 tanker to be bid and the evaluation criteria expanded to give credit to capabilities that might never be widely used. Keep in mind that on many missions, the smaller KC-135 returns to base with surplus fuel that was not off-loaded.
The EADS KC-45A is a capable tanker, but it less maneuverable, requires expensive new hangers, expensive new parking ramps (if the space allows), new runways and, (most importantly) consumes a ton per hour more of increasingly expensive fuel (beer prices are going up) for the next 40+ years.
Now EADS, knowing the evaluation criteria, could have factored the larger 40+ year fuel burn and the new hangers and the new runways and taxiways, and then have bid a price that would have offset the higher ownership costs. They chose not to.
The good old days, in which the USAF would belly-up-to-the-bar and drink all it could and expect someone else to pay the bill, are over. They have to live within their means just like the rest of us.
Victor,
The beer is on me. From 6pm onwards at Jurys Hotel, Eastern Perimeter Rd Heathrow London, on May 13 2011. Seeing the gain in my Boeing shares I need to spend the spoils of the tanker competition on beer for all of you, come all come one and have a good time with friendly banter and tanker talk etc.
I'll toast you from the DC area that day. Cheers!
"Ok who's buying the drinks Mark77 ? I'm sure Ebeneezer won't be"
Only if getting tanked up is pragmatic and cost effective and wont leave me with the hangover that drinking warm watery UK /euro beer might
Ebeneezer Scrooge:warm watery UK /euro beer
"warm watery UK /euro beer"....I suspect you have never had the pleasure of sipping an ice-cold, premium European lager beer from a pavement cafe in one of Europe’s great historical cities such as Seville, Hamburg, or Toulouse. Note the words "premium European", just like the KC-45. Stick to your Bud-Lite.