Military AI Works

I think the point he is complaining about is that the USAF asked for competitors but kicked them out now. As I do not know any details of the offers I don't know if this choice was made on a financial or political basis.

I believe that the DoD requires a competition for all purchases. What nearly screwed it was the fact that Airbus said that they weren't going to enter. Only one entrant=no competition=no contract. There seems to have been some intense behind the scenes diplomacy to get Airbus to enter, likely to be around the WTO subsidy accusations and agreements.

I said at the time that Boeing would get this contract no matter what the USAF wanted (I believe that there are substantial rumours that it wanted the bigger plane). I can see that there was the possibility that the USAF were told that if Boeing don't win then there will be an appeal and another 18 month minimum delay and you never know what will happen with budget cuts.

Political pressure does happen, the RAF never wanted the Tornado F3. It was always third choice. It was told buy it or other things will go.

Don't most of those countries use the Lockheed Herk? Is that not American;-)
Think you need to check your facts...Anyway I'll goto A.NET for that stuff..

As long as the USAF gets a new tanker, thats all what matters at the end of the day....

signing out before somebody gets stroppy

Australia also has the airbus aircraft, so i suppose the airbus is a very capable aircraft for all these countries to opt for them over the boeing aircraft?
I would have liked to see a B777 tanker myself.

I wanted EADS to win the contract because the aircraft were going to be built in my home state (Alabama). You were looking at close to 30,000 related jobs. We might be losing Alabama Aircraft Industries (AAI) which would be a big part of it.

http://www.alabamaaircraft.com/

Angry_Anderson wrote: Did Germany, Belgium, France, Spain, Great Britain, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Italy, EVEN HAVE a competition for their military transports?

In the UK there was a competitive contract award. The tankers were purchased on a Private Finance Initiative, which means that when the RAF didn't need them, they can be used for commercial operations (they had to be convertible). IIRC, Boeing/BAe bid on the basis of converting some BA B767s. Apparently the contract may not be as much value for money as originally claimed by the then Labour government:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/09/1 ... J820100915

Contrary to that report, the project is still going ahead...

flyboy wrote:I wanted EADS to win the contract because the aircraft were going to be built in my home state (Alabama). You were looking at close to 30,000 related jobs. We might be losing Alabama Aircraft Industries (AAI) which would be a big part of it.

http://www.alabamaaircraft.com/

AAI filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on February 15, 2011. It appears that their possible demise has little to do with the KC-X selection.

Angry_Anderson wrote:

flyboy wrote:I wanted EADS to win the contract because the aircraft were going to be built in my home state (Alabama). You were looking at close to 30,000 related jobs. We might be losing Alabama Aircraft Industries (AAI) which would be a big part of it.

http://www.alabamaaircraft.com/

AAI filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on February 15, 2011. It appears that their possible demise has little to do with the KC-X selection.

AAI has done a lot of the rebuild of the KC-135s fleet for the USAF. Without KC-135s, no AAI. EADS would replace a lot of the jobs that AAI has. It has a lot to do with Alabama jobs.

Probably the cheapest route would have been for Boeing to offer a new build KC-135, in my opinion, because I don't know if anyone has calculate the cost to infrastructure to field a larger aircraft, when most of the units that will get the airplane, will more than likely need larger hangars to handle the extended wingspan and tailfin height of the B767. And the Airbus is a much larger aircraft indeed.

Does anyone know if either the 767 or A330 need an external ladder(airstairs) for the crew or do they have a similar system as the KC-135, as all us KC-135 guys know about the alert exercises for the war we all hope never comes.


KC-135 Avionics Pointy Heads Rule!!

USAF says Boeing was "the clear winner....."

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... rce%20Says

A clear winner when you take politics into account

Looks like Boeing is winning twice on this one. FedEx and Boeing are in talks for a 767-400f to replace the MD-10. Seems ironic, the KC-135 helped the 707 and now the KC-46 is helping revive orders on the 767-400. I wonder if others will follow?

One of the longest and strangest contests in Pentagon history ended Friday when EADS said it would not contest the $30 billion contract Boeing Co. won last month to supply the Pentagon with aerial tankers. - Chicago Tribune By Julie Johnsson Posted today at 4:52 p.m. CST

.

Well if EADS wants to eventually compete for the KC-Y competition, this is probably a smart move on their part.

But there was a lot more to this decision than just picking a new tanker. Can you imagine the uproar if Boeing was awarded a contract to build a tanker for the French AND allowed to build an aircraft manufacturing facility on French soil.

This wasn't just about a tanker.

Yes, EADS stated as much. They knew they could not compete on the smaller tanker in price, and Boeing won bid by $2 billlion. With the Air Force following there own bid rules scrupulously, they have/had no valid criteria to protest. The fixed bid by Boeing was so low that they will have an extremely hard time making any profit on these first 18 tankers, and tough time doing it on time. A big secondary reason for the low bid was to win at all costs and keep EADS from getting a commercial aircraft manufactureing facility here in the USA.

The US taxpayers win out on the price, but not sure it does Boeing a lot of good. It does keep the 767 line running, and plenty of jobs staying there.
I think even with no-protest, this is far from the end of the story.