Comments on: Boeing and Air Force In Lovers Spat

By: Trent Telenko

Trent Telenko — Fri, 02 May 2008 12:43:35 +0000

There is a very good reason all the recent Boeing contract awards have been contested by other firms.
It is straight from Military Procurement 101,

By: Reader Bob

Reader Bob — Fri, 02 May 2008 05:53:38 +0000

The way things are going now, today, with the

By: charles warren

charles warren — Fri, 02 May 2008 04:08:24 +0000

A friend, Lee Trenholm, who is a retired 767 captain said that with a Boeing you can slip (cross-control) the plane for a crosswind landing, which the Airbus computer won’t allow. I’ve only seen this mentioned occasionally, but appears to be a gripe of Airbus captains, like Lee’s son.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Thu, 01 May 2008 16:23:03 +0000

andy,
Nobody is forgetting that Boeing already had the tanker deal sewed up but just HOW were tax payers being taken for a ride that would cost them and fatten the pockets of Boeing? Some enlightenment for those you continue to bee fooled by this BS claim.
May 23, 2003
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Edward C. “Pete” Aldridge
“
The agreement provides for leasing 100 KC-767 aircraft from the Boeing Co. for six years starting in 2006, at a cost of $131 million lease price plus an additional $7 million in lease-unique costs per aircraft. The total cost will be less than $16 billion. The initiative also includes a provision to purchase the aircraft for about $4 billion at the end of the lease 2017.
“
So that would have been a total cost of ~$20 billion for 100 tankers with Boeing taking on all developement risk & cost. That translates to ~$200 million per tanker. Compare that to the “current” deal of ~$35–40 billion for 179 tankers & you get ~$195.5–223.5 million per tanker. With the previous deal (assuming it stayed on schedule) we would have 100 tankers by 2014, with the current deal we won’t even get the 1st tanker until 2013. Include the cost savings from not having to maintain 136 KC-135E the previous deal would replace 10 years sooner PLUS extensive maintenance & logistical support from Boeing at substantially reduced costs & the cost per tanker of the previous drops even lower compared to the “current” deal. AND with a significant portion of the previous deal cost NOT having to come from the USAF procurement budget & the previous deal begins to look like steal FOR THE USAF!
But since there were those who just could not get the lease deal it was modified to leasing 20 (with, as before, the option to purchase at the end of the lease) [$2.4 billion] & purchase 80 [$14.8 billion] which increased up-front costs but was to have saved ~$4 billion over the life of the aircraft.
The USAF DOES NOT NEED something that can compare to the KC-10 in cargo and offload flexibility (although it will eventually when it looks to replace its KC-10’s). What it NEEDS (according to its own studies) is a KC-135R equivalent. Of course the USAF has increased its requirements since its 2000 studies. The requirement for which Boeing won the previous tanker deal was BAICALLY for a tanker with fuel offload capabilities at least equal to the KC-135R but with the ability to operate from 8000′ runways with a full load of fuel.
Part of the problem with the KC-X requirement is that while it adds greater emphasis on cargo capability than the USAF has previously required OR REQUESTED, it does not indicate specifics as to what/how much cargo capability.
Boeing elected not to offer a KC-777 because the USAF told them they did not want a KC-777.
What dream are you living in where 1 KC-330 can do the one mission of 3 KC-767?

By: LES Tenold

LES Tenold — Thu, 01 May 2008 12:37:11 +0000

I predict that the next President will cancel this contract for the new tankers.

By: andy

andy — Thu, 01 May 2008 12:35:17 +0000

Everyone seems to forget that Boeing already had the tanker deal sewed up until someone discovered that the tax payers were being taken for a ride that would cost them and fatten the pockets of Boeing. Lest we forget just a few short years before a certain company got caught with their hands in the cookie jar on the KC-135 heavy maintenance contract. It cost 2 Vp’s and 1 CEO there jobs. Also a little jail time for the VP’s.
Both companies have parts from overseas but both would also have final assembly in the US.
Boeing needs to be honest with their statements and get out of the grey areas that turn to little white mistruths. When the exectutive part of Boeing gets caught it is always the lower workers in the company that suffer by having to go thru ethics training over and over again.
Boeing had a chanced to offer up the 777 but elected not to do so. The Air Force needs something that can compare to the KC-10 in cargo and offload flexibility. Instead of having three 767’s to do one mission you can have 1 A330. To me that means more fuel savings and more ramp space, also fewer flight crew and maintenance support people.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:51:12 +0000

SMSgt Mac,
Hopefully the anti-Boeing/KC-767 pro-NG/EADS/KC-30 crowd will listen to you about how they should not “dismiss an argument based upon the source as a way of not addressing the argument or issue”. ;)

By: unmentionable

unmentionable — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:28:28 +0000

so why is it that none of the bork the french faction answer the question about the european subsidies?
again, why is it a problem if europe pays for a part of the tanler fleet.
as far as the loss of american expertise if boeing doesn’t get the contract, if b. needs more experience building their old 767, thn it’s a lost cause anyway.
and why does boeing think that it and not another american manufacturer should get the contract? afaik b. is not building a new factory for the contract. ng/eads (eads, not airbus) is.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:48:38 +0000

Boeing-McDonnell Douglas has a history of telling their customers what they will build; not what the customer wants and they result has been numerous losses. They never seem to learn. Ask John McCain.

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:00:35 +0000

I was saving this for my blog, but all this talk of ‘French’ KC-45 content by the newbies is too sweet to pass up.
I estimate that the current Boeing KC-135R has a far higher ‘French’ content with the CFM-56 engines (50% ‘French’) than the KC-45.
How does all this xenophobia for the KC-45 square with the ‘Foreign’ content of thr B767? –Especially as it applies to the Chinese vertical stabilizer?
Good point about the French stepping up on the NATO commitment. I was surprised to read there are French fighters flying ADIZ patrols out of Iceland. (A yeoman’s job performed most admirably by the 57FIS for decades, and of course done best when I was there in 80–82.;-)