Airbus Build in the USA! The Tanker Wars Continue

Jumpshot724 · Post by **Jumpshot724** » 13 Aug 2008, 14:45

F-22s will b e sold off eventually. When we do sell a war machine such as an aircraft to a foreign nation they only get the very basics such as airframe and basic avionics. It's up to that country to put it's own radar and weapons systems in it, thus keeping the advantage in our (US) hands. They won't sell the F-22 for some time now, probably not until the F-35s start comming on line and filling up ramp space.

Don't forget how when relations with Iran went sour in the '80s how their F-14s "mysteriously" broke down after the American technicians left the country

ricktk · Post by **ricktk** » 13 Aug 2008, 16:45

Chicago Tribune reporting this morning that Boeing will bid on the contract, despite earlier reports.

Jumpshot724 · Post by **Jumpshot724** » 13 Aug 2008, 18:37

Chicago Tribune reporting this morning that Boeing will bid on the contract, despite earlier reports.

Yes that's what I said earlier lol

By the way:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/ ... ng_081208/

mikek · Post by **mikek** » 14 Aug 2008, 06:22

For an opinion from another country here's one from little old New Zealand...

First of all, surely the best product should win the contract. If I was on the frontline with equipment that was bought purely because it was made in my country and my mates were getting killed because the equipment wasn't particularly good, I would not be impressed. Surely the best equipment for the job should be bought as soldiers, sailors and airmens lives should take a higher priority than protecting jobs and industry in your country.

Second, if you don't export technology, there are very few other countries that have the capability to develop it on their own. If every country took the view that they wouldn't export technology then very few would have anything of use. That would leave a massive gap in the worlds ability to work together for security. America would have to deploy aircraft carriers to every part of the world to prevent piracy/terrorism etc, as very few others would be able to do it. And I say aircraft carriers because if technology won't be exported then why should anyone allow anyone else to base their stuff in their country?
In my opinion this would very quickly become far too much of a burden for any one country (ie, USA) to deal with and I think you would very quickly find 'allies' being sold equipment to look after their neck of the woods.

ricktk · Post by **ricktk** » 22 Aug 2008, 22:00

Boeing considers leaving $35 billion tanker competition without more time to put bid together, reports the Chicago Tribune.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... 7791.story

GZR_Sactargets · Post by **GZR_Sactargets** » 04 Sep 2008, 19:47

From AF Daily Report 4 Sep 08

I bet this drags out until after the US Elections.

Split Decision: If splitting the litigious KC-X aerial tanker program between Boeing and Northrop Grumman would break the gridlock on getting a new tanker, that would be an acceptable—if "troublesome"—solution to the problem, Gen. Arthur Lichte, Air Mobility Command chief, said yesterday. "I'm not really in favor of it, because it will cost more money," Lichte told Washington, D.C.-based defense reporters at a breakfast meeting Sept. 3. Buying two airplanes would require "two logistics lines that we'll have to maintain" as well as "two different types of training for the aircrews," Lichte said. As recently as last fall, the Air Force pegged the cost of setting up a dual tanker program at around $2 billion to $4 billion, not including separate logistics funding. However, Lichte said, "If you were to tell me that's the only way we're going to get out of this predicament, then sign me up." In his view, both tankers are "outstanding" and he would "be happy with either one." The Pentagon expects to issue a final request for proposals sometime before the end of next week. Lichte expects to see fresh protests, further delaying the program, which, he said, has become even more time urgent with the withdrawal of the KC-135E from service due to age issues.

More Now, Not More Later: If the Air Force had to accept a split-buy (see above), it would only affect cash flow and not represent a fundamental shift in the program, Air Mobility Command chief, Gen. Arthur Lichte, said yesterday. The service plans to buy new tankers in three batches: KC-X, followed by KC-Y, and finally KC-Z. If the Air Force were obliged to buy both Boeing and Northrop Grumman's airplanes at a rate of 15 a year from each company, it would actually mean accelerating the KC-Y buy, not doubling up the size of the program, Lichte explained. "I'm not adding anything new, but the way the dollars are laid in, they're laid in more in the near-years than the out-years," he said. If done that way, it would also sharply lessen the cost of carrying antique KC-135R tankers even further past their sensible retirement dates and put many more new tankers in the hands of aircrews much faster. "I'd be happy with that; I'd be very happy with that," Lichte said. "But realistically, I've got to balance the budget as well, and that's where I struggle and wring my hands about a split-buy." Buying both tankers—but at 15 per year total, with seven or eight from each company—would be extravagantly wasteful, the Air Force has maintained, and would eliminate any savings from competition due to the extremely small production lots. "The short answer," Lichte asserted, "is if I get the money to do a split-buy, I'll gladly do that. … If you want to give me two tankers instead of one, I guess I'm twice as happy."

ricktk · Post by **ricktk** » 10 Sep 2008, 16:51

The Pentagon plans to delay its $35 billion Air Force refueling tanker competition unitl the next administration, saying it's impossible to pick a winner by January, according to report from Chicago Tribune.

sprocky · Post by **sprocky** » 10 Sep 2008, 16:56

News here say the Pentagon has stopped the "Tanker Wars".
Reason: They want to wait who is winning the elections.
Well, this sounds strange to me. I thought it is a question of what is the best aircraft for the Air Force not a question of which party the president represents.

EDIT: Rick, you were faster than me. If I only was not disturbed by this phonecall

ricktk · Post by **ricktk** » 10 Sep 2008, 17:16

Sorry about that, was on my Tribune business alert this morning.

May also be a way to give Boeing the more time they requested, without coming out and saying so. Either way, even if they got a contract awarded by January, the next presidential administration would have great influence over it.

GZR_Sactargets · Post by **GZR_Sactargets** » 19 Mar 2009, 18:01

From the 'Early Bird' 19 MAR 09

The Hill
March 19, 2009

Gates Opposes Splitting Tanker Contract

By Roxana Tiron

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Wednesday hit back at a congressional proposal to split a controversial Air Force midair refueling tanker contract between bitter rivals Northrop Grumman and Boeing.

Gates called a growing congressional push for a split of the $35 billion contract “bad public policy” and “bad acquisition policy.” He said he opposes the idea of the Pentagon footing the bill for two different types of aircraft: one offered by Boeing, the other from a team of Northrop Grumman and EADS North America, the parent company of Airbus.

“I think it’s a bad deal for taxpayers,” Gates told reporters on Wednesday. He said that the Air Force would have to spend money on two ways to maintain the aircraft, different types of spare parts and increased logistics — all factors that could boost the bill for the tankers.

Several prominent lawmakers in recent days have started talking about a dual buy between Northrop and Boeing. The chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), last week said that he has been working on a proposal that would fund two tankers to be built a month, instead of just one as initially projected. Boeing and the Northrop Grumman-EADS team would compete for the contract. The company that presents the best offer would get to build the larger number of tankers, and the second best a lesser number.

Murtha said that he is initially eyeing the remainder of the fiscal 2009 supplemental to allocate money for the competition and some development costs for the tanker.

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), the chairman of the Armed Services Air and Land Forces sub-panel, said last week that consensus is developing, at least in the House, that the Air Force should award contracts to both Boeing and the Northrop Grumman team.

GZR_Sactargets · Post by **GZR_Sactargets** » 27 May 2009, 15:46

From AF Daily Report 27 May 09

To Split or Not to Split?: The answer was the same from both Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz: no split for the rejuvenated KC-X tanker replacement program. The Air Force plans to issue a new draft request for proposals "within the next month or so," Donley told the Senate Armed Services Committee during a May 21 hearing on the service's 2010 budget request, followed by a contract award "probably next spring." If the service had to support a two-tanker program, Donley maintained, USAF would have "to spend a lot more money up front to support two sort of minimum economic order production lines at the same time." He explained that the "considerable downside" in having to increase the buy from 15 per year with a single contractor to 24 per year to accommodate two contractors is that "it costs us a lot more money to do that every single year." And, that, Donley continued, would put "a huge dent in our procurement plans going forward for other necessary capabilities in other areas." Schwartz noted, too, that "we are not dealing with sophisticated platforms here; we're dealing with commercial derivative platforms." He asserted, "We should invest the limited dollars we have to get the most airplanes as quickly as we can," rather than spending scarce dollars on sustaining "two supply chains, two training activities, and so on." However, there continues to be great concern that the tanker program will fail again if it doesn't go the two tanker route.

MIKE JG · Post by **MIKE JG** » 27 May 2009, 19:58

Just build the Boeing bird down in Alabama, problem solved.....

Firebird · Post by **Firebird** » 27 May 2009, 20:40

*hehe* You don't think that would start a row then?