KCX decided. USAF's new French tanker

[mavacpjm71]

Fiddy, - in all due respect - now i think you are being rude...

Im not leveling a balance between gear - aircraft - armor etc...im simply talking about a specific military bid for new tanker aircraft...period...not sure where you are coming from my friend, but in the spirit of respect - i will end with that comment, as this conversation is going down the wrong direction...for sure...cheers...

[Al Lewis]

Oh, and by the way, When my youngest son deployed to Iraq as a designated marksman and sniper, he deployed with the body armor and equipment that I bought him, including his scope, because we were so busy complaining about the cost of the war and pouring billions into Cheney's old outfit that they didn't have the money to buy the soldiers what they needed for combat. I talked to a young man yesterday that spent $2500.00 on his personal body armor to deploy to Iraq because his Marine unit couldn't afford to buy it. He never got reimbursed. Yeah, let's spend those tax dollars somewhere else.

[50%plane]

have a nice day.

[brn2fly]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Al Lewis
	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.

Here is some reports off of Bloomberg:

"March 5 (Bloomberg) -- Boeing Co.'s losing bid for a U.S. Air Force refueling tanker program was less than the contract awarded to the team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co., which is valued at as much as $35 billion, Boeing's defense chief said.

The Boeing 767, on which the tanker is based, burns less fuel than the Airbus A330, making its aircraft lower cost to operate, Albaugh said.
Boeing released a study in January saying its smaller KC- 767 jet burned 24 percent less fuel than Northrop's, saving about $14.6 billion in fuel costs over the life of the program.
The company was discouraged from using its larger 777 as the platform for the tanker to give better access to more remote runways, Albaugh said."

And Boeing (45,000 jobs) was going to have more jobs then Airbus(26,000 jobs) here in the states.

[mavacpjm71]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Al Lewis
	Oh, and by the way, When my youngest son deployed to Iraq as a designated marksman and sniper, he deployed with the body armor and equipment that I bought him, including his scope, because we were so busy complaining about the cost of the war and pouring billions into Cheney's old outfit that they didn't have the money to buy the soldiers what they needed for combat. I talked to a young man yesterday that spent $2500.00 on his personal body armor to deploy to Iraq because his Marine unit couldn't afford to buy it. He never got reimbursed. Yeah, let's spend those tax dollars somewhere else.

AL, I have family members in afghanistan as we speak, my aunt had to purchase her body armor as well, I definately think we need to do more for our soldiers - no doubt...

[mavacpjm71]

	Quote: Originally Posted by brn2fly
	Here is some reports off of Bloomberg: "March 5 (Bloomberg) -- Boeing Co.'s losing bid for a U.S. Air Force refueling tanker program was less than the contract awarded to the team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co., which is valued at as much as $35 billion, Boeing's defense chief said. The Boeing 767, on which the tanker is based, burns less fuel than the Airbus A330, making its aircraft lower cost to operate, Albaugh said. Boeing released a study in January saying its smaller KC- 767 jet burned 24 percent less fuel than Northrop's, saving about $14.6 billion in fuel costs over the life of the program. The company was discouraged from using its larger 777 as the platform for the tanker to give better access to more remote runways, Albaugh said." And Boeing (45,000 jobs) was going to have more jobs then Airbus(26,000 jobs) here in the states.

Yes - BRN2FLY - my initial response on this thread was cost, and keeping the military tanker built and created with an american DOD firm in America...the aircrafts economics are better then the A330 for sure....and if we look simply on the basis of matching the initial bid spec - boeing delivered based on the initial bid spec for medium tanker, they could easily have bid the 777 (if the Air Force would have informed Boeing in advance of their change of thought) and still yielded a savings over the A330 and then its apples to apples...

[pcastine]

One upside for Boeing out of this (we can hope, anyway) is that by losing this contract, they will have some lessons learned and can be more competitive the next time they go up against Airbus/Northrup.

Pete

[brn2fly]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Al Lewis
	Let me tell you all the bottom line as I see it. You may not agree, this is a free country, thanks to the thousand's of airmen, sailors, and army troops, so you have that right. I'm tired of seeing the airman that risk their lives everyday for our safety and freedom get stuck with some piece of crap equipment because a lot of whinny people without a real clue that, for the most part, never spent a single minute in the defense of this country, complain and protest because THEY didn't get what THEY wanted. I don't care what THEY want. I don't care how many palms get greased in Washington in the process. What I do care about is giving this diminishing force the best equipment available to protect us and them. If the damn thing has a jacuzzi then good for them, they earned it! Most of you didn't. So sit back on your duffs and make all of your money and profess to be real Americans while you endanger the lives of the people really taking care of this country. I can't think of a better way to spend tax dollars. That's okay though, maybe the next airliner taken over by Muslim extremists will fly through the building where your wives or kids work. Then you can complain that the military did nothing to protect them with their inferior equipment that YOU thought they should have. I tell you what though, you're free to get your butt out of bed in the morning and run down to the nearest recruiting office and volunteer to fight for this country and then see what your point of view is on the subject. See if you care where the planes that support you came from then.

Not sure were this commit came from, however I have over 15 years in the service and have spent the last 9 years flying BOEING aircraft in the Air Force and I for one do not want to fly a Scarbus.

[Al Lewis]

	Quote: Originally Posted by brn2fly
	Not sure were this commit came from, however I have over 15 years in the service and have spent the last 9 years flying BOEING aircraft in the Air Force and I for one do not want to fly a Scarbus.

Well I spent 22 years in the Air Force and know a lot of active duty tanker pilots that would welcome this plane. What's your unit?? You flying C-17s out of Altus or are you in the training squadron??

[aerowiz]

i have read this thread start to finish....

somewhere it states that the eads built tanker has a greater likelyhood of being delivered on time.

that is really funny!!!!!!!!

ive worked there. hah hah.




rememeber: going to war with the french
is like going deer hunting with a piano accordian

one of your famous american generals stated this in ww2 , i cant remember which one it was.

[mavacpjm71]

	Quote: Originally Posted by aerowiz
	i have read this thread start to finish.... somewhere it states that the eads built tanker has a greater likelyhood of being delivered on time. that is really funny!!!!!!!! ive worked there. hah hah. rememeber: going to war with the french is like going deer hunting with a piano accordian one of your famous american generals stated this in ww2 , i cant remember which one it was.

AEROWIZ - You have me on the floor LMAO

[Reza]

Gentlemen,

I'm afraid it's not all done yet http://www.gao.gov/press/boeingstmt.pdf

I never like the idea of having foreign countries being allies or what not and have access to our top secret technology! Today's allies are not necessarily tomorrow's!

I am really happy about GAO evaluation although that doesn't guarantee anything getting changed but at least give you guys more insight on how things can go where they shouldn't. and how our hard earned tax dollars can go overseas when our economy is already seeing a recession and many are out of jobs!

And BOEING does care about our troops at least I'd like to think they care more about their own people than French but I could be wrong!