Tanker Contract

[Paul]

Heard on the radio from Congressman Norm Dicks the new head of Defense Appropriations Committee that Northrop Grumman is going to announce later today that they are going to be backing out of the tanker contract....

Paul

[Firebird]

You could see that coming when the general feeling is that the contest is slanted towards Boeing, although plenty would disagree with it. In European aviation circles Airbus basically feel there not going to waste their money on a contest that they will not be allowed to win.

I think that they are hoping that by pulling out it will force a re-think by the US. Personally, I think that they are pissing into the wind.

[Paul]

What really helps Boeing out is that Congressman Dicks is from Boeing Country....He also said that he thought that it should be winner take all instead of splitting the contract. In Bremerton they have a government building named after him....also heard that one of Northrop Grumman's affiliates may go solo on a bid...can't remember the name.

[Firebird]

The thing that bugs me is that it must be a decade now since Boeing was awarded a contract for tankers.
Then it was found that some currency changed hands, and it got cancelled and Boeing were persona non grata for years.
Then they lose a seemingly fair contest.
Then there are cries of foul and the whole thing is wiped clean on technicalities.
Now a new contest looks like it will be a walkover, because of one sides perceptions.

The outcome will, in all likelihood, be that the USAF will get 767 tankers. A decade late and millions of dollars would have been wasted. I can't help feeling that the ultimate loser has been the USAF/USANG having to try and keep its current fleet maintained and active, at probably some considerable expense.

It's bizarre, beyond belief. May be there will be another twist yet.

[sprocky]

... and in the end the tax payers are the losers as well.

Also I think this will lead to EC countries (at least those with Airbus workforce) to be more open for European a/c when it comes to such decisions (tankers, transport aircraft, etc.). In terms of the A400M it happened already

[sprocky]

The News report the Northop Grumman / Airbus bailout of the bid here.

They say it was an unfair bid since Boeing could adjust their offer after receiving the NGC one. They also say it is a bad day for the American workers since they planned a new facility in US which would lead to about 48.000 new jobs - much more than Boeing expected when receiving the contract. As mentioned before: the B767 is an ageing type and compared to the A330 orders over the last years... The Air Force will receive a jet aircraft almost at the end of its lifetime. This will lead to expensive spare parts (have a look at the RAF's Nimrods, L-1011 or VC-10's). Don't take me wrong: I am not for Airbus in general. But in this case I think they have the best a/c. A B772 would have been a different thing. Almost same size and performance and age (in technology terms) as well.

[scottr5213]

The one thing that I think of is how long it took Airbus to get the A400 flying, how long would it take for them to get a tanker flying.

[MIKE JG]

I believe their proposal is already flying, is it not? A330MRT, is that the same thing??

[Firebird]

Yeah, Mike. It is the same thing. KC-30/KC-45 all based on the A330.

[jetmax]

At this point I really don't care who makes it, we need a new tanker and we need it yesterday. The crew chiefs on the KC-135 are miracle workers. We should have bought more KC-10 too.

[sprocky]

Now this looks interesting. Local media report that a third bidder bids for the contract: the russian United Aircraft Corp (UAC) in conjunction with an american company. American attorney John Kirkland: "They are in talks since about a year now. If the competition will be fair UAC will receive the contract. Hillary Clinton and Sergey Lavrov had a look at the offer when she was in Moscow recently." The aircraft in question is the IL-98. Main parts are to be built in Russia with final assembly in the USA.

Comments anyone?

[Firebird]

Well, this is the second bidder as Airbus/Northrop are not bidding on this at all.

However this could be a political god send for Capitol Hill. It can now say that there was a competition and kick into touch any claims of pro-American bias in their decision to buy Boeing.

The actual bid, if it gets that far, doesn't stand a snowballs chance.

[sprocky]

Hm, I am sure I heard of Airbus still "thinking" of re-entering this process - depending on changes in conditions.

[MIKE JG]

I think we should sell our entire fleet of KC-135's. We need the money these days.

[Firebird]

Hmmm. I can't see it happening for this reason. If they alter the rules to entice Airbus in, Boeing will cry foul as they will say that their submission was according to the rules at the time etc. etc.
Now if Airbus was to go on and win, Boeing will scream blue murder and there will be such a political row that the contest will be annulled again. This is something that the Gov doesn't want, for political reasons, and the USAF doesn't want for operational reasons.

Now I can not be considered anywhere near a semi-expert in US politics but I am willing to wager that no changes will be made to the rules, therefore Airbus will not bid.

This is purely my opinion, but I don't think I am far wrong here.

[Firebird]

I think we should sell our entire fleet of KC-135's. We need the money these days.

You sold 3 to the RAF, Mike, does this count?

[MIKE JG]

Did we??

[Firebird]

Yep, 3 are being converted into the RC-135s for the RAF.

[petebramley]

Do we get the gaffer tape free ??

[maddog65]

Nope

We need the money these days.