US Airforce Choose Airbus Over Boeing

[Dick Splash]

I heard this the other day. Boeing aren't too pleased.

DS

[Whistle]

i thought boeing had that contract in the bag.

[krise madsen]

Just a hint: The new EADS tankers will be built in Alabama, with thousands of jobs being created there. I'm sure those elected to represent Alabama on Capitol Hill were keen to see EADS win the contract. I wonder if those politicians have a seat in any influential commitees?

Respectfully

krise madsen

Edited March 6, 2008 by krise madsen

[Cpl Ledanek]

correct me if I'm wrong, Airbus is a French-owned company with ties to a Saudi family? The newest biggest airbus was recently bought by a Saudi Prince right?

just a random thought...sorry if OT

either way, good for the many ppl of Alabama

[WhiteKnight77]

either way, good for the many ppl of Alabama

Have you ever been to Alabama? Not much there though in Prattville, there is a nice new Bass Pro Shops right behind the hotel we stay in when working at the International Paper plant there and in Selma.

[krise madsen]

correct me if I'm wrong, Airbus is a French-owned company with ties to a Saudi family? The newest biggest airbus was recently bought by a Saudi Prince right?

just a random thought...sorry if OT

either way, good for the many ppl of Alabama

You're wrong

Actually, Airbus was formed as a multinational (European) consortium of individual companies agreeing to cooperate, to compete with Boeing in the airliner business. Primarily with British, German and French participation. It is now a division of European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company EADS N.V. (EADS), which is a multinational (mainly European) aerospace and defense corporation, much like Lockeed-Martin, BAe or Boeing for that matter. It is headquartered in the Netherlands and operates under Dutch law.

The new tanker contract is being done in cooperation between EADS and Northrop-Grumman.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Cpl Ledanek]

correct me if I'm wrong, Airbus is a French-owned company with ties to a Saudi family? The newest biggest airbus was recently bought by a Saudi Prince right?

just a random thought...sorry if OT

either way, good for the many ppl of Alabama

You're wrong

Actually, Airbus was formed as a multinational (European) consortium of individual companies agreeing to cooperate, to compete with Boeing in the airliner business. Primarily with British, German and French participation. It is now a division of European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company EADS N.V. (EADS), which is a multinational (mainly European) aerospace and defense corporation, much like Lockeed-Martin, BAe or Boeing for that matter. It is headquartered in the Netherlands and operates under Dutch law.

The new tanker contract is being done in cooperation between EADS and Northrop-Grumman.

Respectfully

krise madsen

good to hear always learning more from ppl from other side of pond remids me to start another topic that ppl from other side might help.

[NoQuarter]

The new EADS tankers will be built in Alabama, with thousands of jobs being created there.

I suppose built is a selective term. I would have used assembled, to more accurately reflect the situation.

It is now a division of European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company EADS N.V. (EADS), which is a multinational (mainly European) aerospace and defense corporation, much like Lockeed-Martin, BAe or Boeing for that matter.

However in this case, the tools and dies (for the above assembled parts), along with the skill sets needed to produce the parts, are located off-shore, in countries where state participation/ownership in corporations is sometimes, well, clouded.

Not an inconsequential consideration when building a 35 billion dollar support fleet.

[Forrester]

The new EADS tankers will be built in Alabama, with thousands of jobs being created there.

I suppose built is a selective term. I would have used assembled, to more accurately reflect the situation.

It is now a division of European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company EADS N.V. (EADS), which is a multinational (mainly European) aerospace and defense corporation, much like Lockeed-Martin, BAe or Boeing for that matter.

However in this case, the tools and dies (for the above assembled parts), along with the skill sets needed to produce the parts, are located off-shore, in countries where state participation/ownership in corporations is sometimes, well, clouded.

Not an inconsequential consideration when building a 35 billion dollar support fleet.

You mean that EADS is being funded by European countries, as illegal support?????

Whow, I guess you're wrong..... The country that does the most on that part is China and after China the US of A..... EADS is part European Part US (though Lokheed used to be Dutch Fokker sold off at the start of WOII for way to little money, but hey.....thats history...lol)

[krise madsen]

The new EADS tankers will be built in Alabama, with thousands of jobs being created there.

I suppose built is a selective term. I would have used assembled, to more accurately reflect the situation.

Agreed. They will be assembled in Alabama from parts made all over the world. This is the case for practically any new aircraft.

It is now a division of European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company EADS N.V. (EADS), which is a multinational (mainly European) aerospace and defense corporation, much like Lockeed-Martin, BAe or Boeing for that matter.

However in this case, the tools and dies (for the above assembled parts), along with the skill sets needed to produce the parts, are located off-shore, in countries where state participation/ownership in corporations is sometimes, well, clouded.

Not an inconsequential consideration when building a 35 billion dollar support fleet.

Yup. Again, this is the case in practically any modern aircraft manufacture. Parts come from all over the world.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[NoQuarter]

Well there is the forest, and then there are the trees.

[NoQuarter]

I heard this the other day. Boeing aren't too pleased.

They are probably feeling better now...the GAO just recommended that the bidding be re-opened, and on a level playing field -this time.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123103365

http://www.gao.gov/press/press-boeing2008jun18_3.pdf

[SnowFella]

Guess Boeing has proved with that that throwing a toddler tantrum when things go against them acctually works from time to time.

Way to go Boeing....you just sulked your way into another chance.

[NoQuarter]

Whatever the reason behind it, the Pentagon has re-opened the bidding process...so let the whining or cherry-picking (your call) recommence.

I wonder what type of junkets will be available this go around?

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/...=rss-topstories

[Fletch]

I can't remember the exact details but didn't Boeing submit a bid based on the contract requirements and the Other company decided to up the Anti and built a larger better aircraft beyond what the contract called for? Then the AF decided they like the bigger is better idea?

[krise madsen]

From what I understand from various articles, the Boeing bid did better in fulfilling all the requirements than the Airbus one, but the Airbus bid exceeded the requirements in some areas that the Air Force found attractive. The main reason for the GAO recommending the process be repeated is that he Air Force had not adhered to all the rules of the bidding process.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Cutaway]

The plane will then be a licence built aircraft based on an airbus design. I guess either Boeing will try and buy Airbus or there will be an Airbus USA branch to be established.

[Gordo_Viper]

Might see Boeing go for a 777 option to give better range and fuel offload capability etc.

[krise madsen]

The plane will then be a licence built aircraft based on an airbus design. I guess either Boeing will try and buy Airbus or there will be an Airbus USA branch to be established.

The KC-30 is actually offered by Northrup Grumman with Airbus as a subcontractor, so that's already taken care of.

Might see Boeing go for a 777 option to give better range and fuel offload capability etc.

TBH, I'm not entirely up to speed on airliners these days, but apparently the 777 is considerably larger, which leads to a number of issues with which airfields can handle it e.c.t. There is also the issue of integrating a tanker configuration on an entirely new airframe, so most likely Boeing will offer the 767 again.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[WhiteKnight77]

I don't know of any US air base that could not handle a 777.

A 777-300 has the following dimensions and has a maximum take off weight of 299,380kg (660,000lb):

Wing span 60.93m (199ft 11in), or folded 47.32m (155ft 3in)

length 73.86m (242ft 4in)

height 18.51m (60ft 9in)

Wing area 427.8m2 (4605sq ft)

A 767-400 has a MTOW of 204,120kg (450,000lb) with dimensions of:

Wing span 51.92m (170ft 4in)

length 61.37m (201ft 4in)

height 16.87m (55ft 4in)

A C-5B has a MTOW of 769,000 pounds (348,818 kilograms) (peacetime), 840,000 pounds (381,024 kilograms) (wartime) and the dimensions of:

Wingspan: 222.9 feet (67.89 meters)

Length: 247.1 feet (75.3 meters)

Height: 65.1 feet (19.84 meters)

While a 767 or 777 might be altered a bit to handle more weight, they still pale in comparison to what a C-5 can handle and I haven't been on many AF or even Marine or Navy air bases that couldn't handle a C-5.

[Gordo_Viper]

TBH, I'm not entirely up to speed on airliners these days, but apparently the 777 is considerably larger, which leads to a number of issues with which airfields can handle it e.c.t. There is also the issue of integrating a tanker configuration on an entirely new airframe, so most likely Boeing will offer the 767 again.

Respectfully

krise madsen

777 is larger but would offer a better and more competitive fuel offload capability at range then the 767 would (might compete with the A330 as well).

You can never have too much AAR capability.

Sure integrating the AAR capability onto a new airframe is a lot of work; the RAAF A330's are still being worked on. But having the greater fuel offload/cargo/range does make things easier.

Airfield issue relates to take off issues on take off the increased thrust on the 777's engines means they need longer runways to operate from in case of loosing an engine on take off then the less powerful 767 engines do.

[krise madsen]

And there is the issue of maybe having to operate from foreign air bases which aren't necessarily built for 777-size airliners. Personally I suspect it isn't a huge deal but it was something mentioned in the specs.

I'm not even sure if Boeing is allowed to change the airframe for the next bidding round, but even if they can, they probably don't have the time to cme up with a fully fledged 777 bid. I have no idea about the price. It may be more expensive to procure but cheaper overall operational costs.

TBH, I don't think one design will be dramatically better or worse than the other. The most pressing issue now is time. The KC-135's aren't getting any younger: Availibility rates will drop and operating costs will rise.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Papa6]

Also, you must consider that, the C-5 Galaxy is considered way old as well. I live not far as the crow flies from andrews AF base in MD. I heard and saw a C-5 Galaxy fly overhead and remembered that in 1987 I was pulling guard duty on a series of C-5's. they're 20+ yrs old now.

[WhiteKnight77]

Also, you must consider that, the C-5 Galaxy is considered way old as well. I live not far as the crow flies from andrews AF base in MD. I heard and saw a C-5 Galaxy fly overhead and remembered that in 1987 I was pulling guard duty on a series of C-5's. they're 20+ yrs old now.

The first C-5s were first deployed in 1969. There is a program testing the M model upgrade that is ongoing at Lockheed Martin - Marietta (outside my back door mind you).

[Gordo_Viper]

The KC-135's are old birds (no argument here). Block obsolence is something facing most militaries and there are no easy fixes.

I know airfield use had come into play however with a smaller offload capability you drag the AAR tanker closer to enemy air defences and you need more tankers to service the same amount of fighters.

C-5 upgrade program sounds interesting; there's been a heated battle between the C-5 and C-17 camps over the recent years. 20 years for the C-5 isn't as bad as some other platforms and given their flight profiles I doubt they have anywhere near the aiframe stresses an air superioty fighter has.