DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • ‘Canes
  • Af-Cam
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the “Buzz”
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Crazy Ivan
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT’s Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • F-35 Watch
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Bubble with Joe Buff
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar’s Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples’ Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward’z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Planes, Copters, Blimps » KC-X Decision!…Not

KC-X Decision!…Not

tanker-deal.jpg

Friday’s the big day, it seems. An insider tells me the decision has been made, but that the memorandum is making its way around the Pentagon to get all the signatures it needs.

Our boy Steve Trimble reports that Northrop Grumman shares went up slightly today while Boeing shares went down (NorGrum is partnered with EADS/Airbus against Boeing). A stock trader buddy of mine (who has no inside knowledge on this contract award at all but it’s still a good point nonetheless) says “why do you think the entire military drives Chevy and Ford trucks?” That is to say, there ain’t no way a European company will win the bid.

I’m not so sure I agree…But we’ll keep you posted.

Tanker Announcement Expected Friday: U.S. Official

WASHINGTON, Feb 27 (Reuters) — The U.S. Air Force’s top weapons buyer said on Wednesday her best bet was that the winner of a potential $40 billion refueling aircraft contract would be announced after U.S. markets close on Friday.

“That’s my best bet for now,” Sue Payton, assistant secretary for acquisition, told Reuters after a hearing of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee on the Air Force 2009 budget request.

Boeing Co. is vying for the contract against a team made up of Northrop Grumman Corp and Europe’s EADS.

“It’s absolutely not going to happen today,” Payton said. “We’re really making sure all the ‘i’s’ are dotted and ‘t’s’ are crossed.”

Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne earlier told Reuters he hoped an award would be announced “any day now,” once the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer, John Young, has signed off on he plan to buy 179 tankers, used to extend warplanes’ operating range.

“You don’t have a decision until all the paperwork is done and complete,” Wynne said during a break in testimony to the House panel.

The Air Force presented its acquisition plan on Monday to a top-level panel chaired by Young, the deputy undersecretary for acquisitions. (Reporting by Jim Wolf, editing by Mark Porter)

– Christian

Share |

February 27th, 2008 | Planes, Copters, Blimps | 386147 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2008/02/27/kc-x-decision-not/KC-X+Decision%21...Not2008-02-27+21%3A24%3A04Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Intel Community Recognizes Cyber Threat | MALD Paves Way for Swarm Ops » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Lu says:
    February 27, 2008 at 6:16 pm

    If a European helicopter can win the Marine One competition, then nothing is impossible.

    Reply
  2. Jack says:
    February 27, 2008 at 6:43 pm

    Since most Americans buy foreign built cars, tvs, ipods, ect why can’t the Pentagon just do what we do and buy the best product for the best price. I guess that makes too much sense.…
    Jack

    Reply
  3. Thom Moriarty says:
    February 27, 2008 at 6:53 pm

    This contract has a potential value of 100 billion dollars. It is almost certain that the bidder that is not selected when the award is announced will file a protest. It is a shame that this contract bid, which is critical to our national defense, has had the shadow of a scandal hanging over it.

    Reply
  4. WIGGUM says:
    February 27, 2008 at 7:21 pm

    Why in the hell is it that companies can protest contracts. All it does is draw out the time it takes to obtain these aircraft. And with the current state of the Air Forces tanker’s, they can’t afford any more lag time. Another thing too, these are freakin tankers were talking about.
    Here’s what the air forces requirements should be for tankers.
    1.) They can fly.
    2.) Gas can actually be transfered from the tanker to the recieving air craft.
    Oh yeah, and another thing, they must be built in
    The United States of America.

    Reply
  5. Kevin says:
    February 27, 2008 at 10:36 pm

    Boeing has taken the American tax-payer for granted and things have gone way too far with military contractors ripping us off. If Northrop/EADS wins, it will send a message to Boeing that it must compete fairly and effectively, if they want any business.

    Reply
  6. pfcem says:
    February 27, 2008 at 11:32 pm

    Kevin, perhaps you should get some of your facts straight before posting such nonsense.

    Reply
  7. Wren Mandagorn says:
    February 28, 2008 at 5:03 am

    I think many are missing the point here. EADS / Airbus are partnered with Northrop Grumman.…..a US company!
    If the consortium wins.…..and on paper they have the better aircraft.….then the majority of the work will be carried out in the US.
    It’s time people stopped worrying about where various companies in a partnership originated and start demanding that the equipment purchased is the best bar none.

    Reply
  8. Benjamin Fan says:
    February 28, 2008 at 11:04 am

    Wish Boeing would have put forth the KC-777 instead of the KC-767.

    Reply
  9. SgtF says:
    February 28, 2008 at 11:11 am

    Fords and Chevys? I if he walks through the parking lot at work with his eyes shut. (I see plenty of European and Japanese makes in mine.) Not that it really has anything to do with the central point– I expect an Boeing buy as much as anyone else simply on these grounds. T’hell with EADS, anyway.

    Reply
  10. George SKinner says:
    February 28, 2008 at 11:13 am

    Despite being partnered with Northrop-Grumman, the KC-30 is still a European product. Toyota and Honda have car assembly plants in North America, but I think most people wouldn’t consider them American cars. Same thing with the KC-30 — the real value-added component(design and engineering) is done in Europe. Assembly jobs pay well, but without the design component, they don’t provide a long-lived economic benefit. That’s why truly domestic manufacturers are usually preferred. This is all irrespective of the quality of the product, of course.

    Reply
  11. Pedro says:
    February 28, 2008 at 2:26 pm

    The ability to lift LESS fuel over a SHORTER range is a WAR LOSING WEAPON that suggests the A330 will win.
    The cancelation of the C5 engine upgrade program last week is also a good pointer — A330s carry a lot of freight!

    Reply
  12. George Skinner says:
    February 28, 2008 at 4:21 pm

    Cargo capacity is fairly important for tankers. The Air Force uses tanker cargo capacity to enable units to self-deploy quickly: load ground equipment, spares, and personnel on board the tanker, and then use the tanker to refuel aircraft en-route. The KC-135 has relatively little cargo capacity, but the KC-10 has proven very useful.

    Reply
  13. nb says:
    February 28, 2008 at 8:48 pm

    I’m still trying to figure out if you want a few big tankers that can carry a lot of fuel but be in few places, or more smaller tankers that can be in more places. I wonder if its an issue to have more eggs in one basket with each larger aircraft?
    If Boeing wins, I would expect them to immediately propose a 777, 787, or even 747–8 to replace the KC-10’s.

    Reply
  14. Vince says:
    February 29, 2008 at 8:47 am

    The problem with using foreign parts for the military is that the first time the Europeans disagree with our military politics try and get support for the aircraft they build!!!

    Reply
  15. NTV says:
    February 29, 2008 at 11:28 am

    > If Boeing wins, I would expect them to
    > immediately propose a 777, 787, or even 747–8
    > to replace the KC-10’s.
    There are plans for future follow contracts called KC-Y and KC-Z. The KC-Y will replace the KC-10 and the KC-Z will replace the rest of the 135’s.

    Reply
  16. Frank Shuler says:
    February 29, 2008 at 4:51 pm

    It’s EADS. –Frank

    Reply
  17. GM Cassel AMH1(AW) USN RET says:
    March 8, 2008 at 3:35 pm

    For Lu: Marine One should be a VIP Osprey.
    And the a330 is flying corrosion trap junkpile.

    Reply
  18. az bookkeeping says:
    August 11, 2008 at 8:45 am

    Northrup has done well with dusting off old designs — they did the same with the B-2, didn’t they?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • Army Fast Tracks GPS Mortar Round
    • That Elephant’s Going To Do What? Where?
    • JSF Costs Jump 50 Percent
    • Let’s Talk AirSea Battle
    • More Vehicle Digital Camouflage
    • Chinese Digi-Camo
    • Defense Spending Headed Down
    • Those Wonderful Sea Lines of Communication
    • Army’s GCV Not Just MGV Warmed Over
    • Cancel Cyber Command
    Recent Comments
    • Army Fast Tracks GPS Mortar Round
      Nice to see my old trade is being brought into the 21st...
      Joe
    • Army Fast Tracks GPS Mortar Round
      minor info detail: Per an Oct09 brief, the Threshold...
      SMSgt Mac
    • Jack Murtha Hall of Fame
      So, Aaron, how long have you been a member of the Benedict Arnold...
      bdwilcox
    • Army Fast Tracks GPS Mortar Round
      On a side note, speaking from a combat engineer/EOD...
      Sodajones
    • That Elephant’s Going To Do What? Where?
      Why not INCREASE the buy by a factor of...
      Dave Barnes
    • Army Fast Tracks GPS Mortar Round
      They started fielding the Army's 120mm to the Marines...
      TMB
    • That Elephant’s Going To Do What? Where?
      The Marines are sticking to their...
      Armchair Warlord
    • Let’s Talk AirSea Battle
      So a country that can't even correctly produce a reverse...
      WJS
    • Army Fast Tracks GPS Mortar Round
      Why would you give them to the Marines? 120 MM is...
      chucklonestar
    • Hurt Locker is a Blast Without the Spark
      Really enjoyed the film, but this is an article...
      Patrick
  • Channels:Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty |Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money |Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network:Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz |SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps |Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program |Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy |User Agreement| © 2010 Military Advantage