KCX decided. USAF's new French tanker

[RustyTumbles]

You guys are not the only ones.

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafn...es/story12.htm

[50%plane]

	Quote: Originally Posted by brn2fly
	Chris, what Boeing do you work on? Was it a McDonald Douglas first? You are right about part availability, there are some that are next to impossible to get. However, parts that are specific to fighters, E-3, tankers, etc. can be hard to get. I would hope that parts that are common to airliners would be reality available to the Air Force.

Yes, it was origionally a McDonald Douglas.

[Stinger1]

If anyone here has an issue with this as I did, go here
http://murray.senate.gov/tankers/

[Al Lewis]

I hate to upset anyone over this but where do you think Boeing is building their planes??? It sure isn't Washington anymore. They have the major assemblies manufactured in South Africa, Japan, and several other countries and only do final assembly here. They went to this scheme a few years back and really haven't been able to keep a delivery deadline since. As far as jobs, they are trying to hire every machinist and past employee they can lay their hands on. They can't get the people because a large number of them left after they moved operations out of state and layed them all off. I don't particularly like the idea of airbus getting the work either but Northrup's bid was lower, ability to provide planes on time 4 times higher, and their plane was better for its intended use. Let's also keep in mind that when this bid first went out one of Boeing's people, a former Air Force contract officer, got caught trying to secure the deal under the table which should have put them out of the bidding completely. What I would like to see is for the Air Force to get the best aerial refueling platform available....period.

[50%plane]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Al Lewis
	I hate to upset anyone over this but where do you think Boeing is building their planes??? It sure isn't Washington anymore. They have the major assemblies manufactured in South Africa, Japan, and several other countries and only do final assembly here. They went to this scheme a few years back and really haven't been able to keep a delivery deadline since. As far as jobs, they are trying to hire every machinist and past employee they can lay their hands on. They can't get the people because a large number of them left after they moved operations out of state and layed them all off. I don't particularly like the idea of airbus getting the work either but Northrup's bid was lower, ability to provide planes on time 4 times higher, and their plane was better for its intended use. Let's also keep in mind that when this bid first went out one of Boeing's people, a former Air Force contract officer, got caught trying to secure the deal under the table which should have put them out of the bidding completely. What I would like to see is for the Air Force to get the best aerial refueling platform available....period.

Well said Al.

[brn2fly]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Al Lewis
	I hate to upset anyone over this but where do you think Boeing is building their planes??? It sure isn't Washington anymore. They have the major assemblies manufactured in South Africa, Japan, and several other countries and only do final assembly here. They went to this scheme a few years back and really haven't been able to keep a delivery deadline since. As far as jobs, they are trying to hire every machinist and past employee they can lay their hands on. They can't get the people because a large number of them left after they moved operations out of state and layed them all off. I don't particularly like the idea of airbus getting the work either but Northrup's bid was lower, ability to provide planes on time 4 times higher, and their plane was better for its intended use. Let's also keep in mind that when this bid first went out one of Boeing's people, a former Air Force contract officer, got caught trying to secure the deal under the table which should have put them out of the bidding completely. What I would like to see is for the Air Force to get the best aerial refueling platform available....period.

The Northrup's bid was not lower. The Airbus cost 40 million more per plane. The Airbus is bigger, closer to the size of a KC-10 than a KC-135. There are several logistical problems the bigger plane brings to the table. Food for thought.

[mavacpjm71]

On shear tax payer dollars the deal should not have gone the side of EADS, 40 million additional per plane, that is a sizeable add-cost against the Boeing bid...A tanker is a tanker, what are we getting for the additional $40 million, Airforce lounge onboard, Jacuzzi for off-hours flight officers, i mean really....no disrespect to any airforce personnel...but add up per plane additional costs multiplied by the shear size of the plane order and we could use that money for many other USA needs...(like rebuilding New Orleans) .......just my 2 cents...

[50%plane]

have a nice day!

[Al Lewis]

	Quote: Originally Posted by brn2fly
	The Northrup's bid was not lower. The Airbus cost 40 million more per plane. The Airbus is bigger, closer to the size of a KC-10 than a KC-135. There are several logistical problems the bigger plane brings to the table. Food for thought.

Not sure where you're getting your information but here's what Rueter's reported:

The Boeing proposal was initially rated "high-risk" because reviewers worried that Boeing's plan to build a new version of the 767 using parts from other versions would add to the cost.
Northrop proposed a tanker based on the Airbus A330 aircraft built by Europe's EADS . Northrop-EADS won in four of the five criteria set by the Air Force: mission capability, past performance, price, and an integrated fleet assessment, according to Thompson.

Further:

Thompson's report said Air Force reviewers concluded that buying the Boeing tanker would have resulted in a slower replacement rate. They predicted that Northrop would have "49 superior tankers operating by 2013, whereas if they went with the Boeing proposal, they would have only 19 considerably less capable planes in that year," he wrote.
Northrop's refueling capacity was seen as superior at a range of 1,000 nautical miles and "substantially superior" at 2,000 miles, Thompson said.
Air Force reviewers were also less confident about Boeing's past performance due to "poor execution" in three relevant programs, including long-delayed tanker deliveries to Japan and Italy, Thompson said. Northrop got higher ratings due to "satisfactory" execution on six programs considered relevant.

[mavacpjm71]

50% The size of the plane i get, no doubt...but the additional cost at that level i do not get....we could use this money in many other areas of govt then here.....

[mavacpjm71]

Al, your point is valid - no doubt...im stating the case based on shear cost...not the logistical risks...

[50%plane]

have a nice day!