EADS/Northrop upsets Boeing in Air Force tanker competition — analyst

Seattle Times ^ | February 29, 2008 | Dominic Gates

[skeptoid]

Boeing has lost the long-awaited and lucrative Air Force refueling tanker contract to a competing bid based on an Airbus airplane, a respected and well-connected defense analyst close to the Air Force tanker deal said Friday.

Loren Thompson, an analyst with the Lexington Institute, cited "100 percent reliable" government sources for his information.

[af_vet_rr]

Governor Gregoire has threatened congressional inquiry ot formal protest if Boeing does't win.

He won't go through with it. Boeing managed to piss off a lot of people in government and in the Air Force with the 767 leasing scandal. Boeing should be lucky they were still considered a contender after that B.S. they pulled.

[straps]

Sorry but your wrong also. Sitting at OpaLocka Coast Guard Base are 8 MDs awaiting to be cut up for spare parts and scrap metal, 2 NWest,2Tigers,2 airlux and so on saw them there today going to the BX at OpaLocka ( NW part of Miami )

[Paleo Conservative]

If they're being scrapped, it's probably due to needing a D-check or being difficult to maintain. Also the parts are valuable for airlines flying MD-11's and DC-10's.

There's no way the USAF would use the MD-11 for tankers considering that the tools to build it no longer exist and only a few frames are available anyway. If they wanted to supplement the KC-10 fleet, a 777F based tanker would be better. All 777F based tankers would be new build and identically configured.

[southernerwithanattitude]

I help build C-130s and F-22s-—now with parts made all over this country.

We have NO business relying on any other country for our military supplies.

[norton]

fine with me, buying 'em from freighters only ups the price.

But the drawings are there and the mods worked in the past. Experienced labor is probably as retired as I am but there ain't any alternatives.

(I'll ask my resident spook to check out how many MD11s are sitting out in Mojave but it'll take awhile to explain where the engines should be)

[norton]

"...the 767 leasing scandal. Boeing should be lucky they were still considered a contender after that B.S. they pulled."

The 'lease deal' was an attempt to provide a needed product, at a profit, that the USG was not willing to actually pay for.

There's a lot of conflict in USG procurement, a lot of effort to make legitimate costs go away, a lot of effort to bury the actual cost of keeping 'em flying.

I don't know what Airburst has promised but I would not take bets on their ability - or intent - to follow through with them.

[norton]

Urgent PS:
Nothing I've said should excuse the misdeeds of one federal procurement goddess, her kid, one Boeing executive, and Boeing's apparent failure to take a stick to all three of them....everything else aside, they verged on a Clintonian sense of liberty from ethical conduct.
To my knowledge the lease deal was legitimate.

[NavyCanDo]

My prayers go out to my friends up at the Everett Plant. This is terrible news for Everett and Washington.

[NavyCanDo]

“He won’t go through with it.”

HE? Governor Gregoire is a woman.

[skeptoid]

He won't go through with it.

I'd wager SHE will!

[B4Ranch]

I’m sure Boeing would have partnered with China. Is that any better?

[skeptoid]

Yes-s-s-s!

[B4Ranch]

>I’m happy for that, but worried for my Air Force if we ever have to cut ties to Europe.<

Here's more to worry about.

Original Message -——
From: Michael M. Dunn
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:22 AM
Subject: Note from AFA President — A/C Restrictions and CSAF White Paper

January 16, 2008
AFA members and Congressional Staffers, many of you have commented favorably on the “elevator speech numbers” I sent you.

It’s January ... so here are some revealing data on the “State of the Air Force.”

Fighter Aircraft - average age: 20 years; average flight hours 5400+

Bomber Aircraft - average age: 32 years; average flight hours 11,400+

Tanker aircraft - average age: 44 years; average flight hours 18,900+

C2 Fleet - average age: 22 years old; average flight hours 32,000

ISR Fleet (excluding UAV) - average age: 30 years old; average flight hours 18,000

Key Groundings/Restrictions

F-15A-D - 163 of 441 are grounded for structural issues

B-52 - 6 are grounded - past due PDM grounding date - authorized a one-time flight to the bone-yard.

EC-130 - 2 of 14 are grounded due to center wing box cracks

C-130E - 3 are grounded and 13 are restricted due to Service life and wing cracks

KC-135Es - 26 of 86 are grounded due to engine strut corrosion.

AC-130U - 4 of 17 are restricted due to lack of 30MM weapons

B-2 - entire fleet is restricted due to windshield bolt hole cracks

C-5s - 39 of 108 are restricted due to crown skin restrictions (weight limiting)

Additionally:

219 of 223 F-15Es have training restrictions due to vertical stab structural issues

Majority of Block 25/30/32, block 40/42, and block 50/52 F-16s need structural modifications

All 356 A-10s will need new wings and new aircraft skin - many have landing gear issues ... and all need new engines.

C-130Hs have Center Wing Box issues

C-32As have bulkhead structural issues.

Looking across the FYDP - between 2008-2013 - the Air Force will divest itself of 749 aircraft and procure only 698 aircraft (260 of which are UAVs).

To give you the idea of the scale of all of this:

When the AF grounded its 600+ F-15 fleet, it grounded more aircraft than the entire F/A Navy. The F-15s it presently has grounded equate to a bit more than 3 aircraft carriers of aircraft.

The 356 A-10s that need renovations equates to more aircraft than the fixed wing USMC

The Air Force has about 5800 aircraft ... and presently about one-third are either grounded or restricted in one way or another
The central important part of this data is that this is not a third-world Air Force ... And the question we should ask ourselves, why don’t we fund it to ensure our children and grandchildren are safe and secure?

2nd Subject -

Chief of Staff White Paper - Gen Moseley published an exceptional White Paper ... which lays out the strategic foundations for the Air Force of the future. If you haven’t seen it, you can find it on the AFA website: http://dailyreport.afa.org/NR/rdonlyres/868196FC-AABB-4230-84EA-F5358B0C4B34/0/CSAF_white_paper.pdf

My favorite quotes in it are:

“No modern war has been won without air superiority. No future war will be won without air, space and cyberspace superiority.” Page 2.

“With the oldest inventory in history, battered by 17 years of continuous combat, the Air Force’s ability to fulfill its missions is already being tested.” Page 2

“... our reliance on assured access to space will increase exponentially.” Page 8

“The Air Force is smaller in December 2007 than it was in December 1941.” Page 10
For your consideration.

Mike

Michael M. Dunn, Lt Gen (Ret)
AFA President/CEO

[dartuser]

Sikorsky loss of the President’s chopper is an insult to us all.

The US101 airframe is the best medium lift helicopter in the world. And quite frankly Sikorsky does not have the intellectual bandwidth to integrate the complex systems that need to go into the Presidents new transport. They are an airframer, not an integrator.

They lost that competition for all the right reasons.

[wolf78]

Problem is the Airbus is “fly-by-wire” and can’t do the rapid maneuvers that the Boeing can....somewhat important in a war bird.

It's all a question of how rigid you program the flight envelope protection. During flight shows Airbus showed off some pretty nimble turns even with its largest bird, the A380 (granted, nothing from either A or B today beats the B 707 barrel roll).

If the USAF e.g. wants a manual override, i.e. no stall protection at all, for 35+ billion, it will certainly get it.

[SeaHawkFan]

It's all a question of how rigid you program the flight envelope protection. During flight shows Airbus showed off some pretty nimble turns even with its largest bird, the A380 (granted, nothing from either A or B today beats the B 707 barrel roll).

The 707 barrel roll was a 1G maneuver, so there was no increased stress on the airframe over a straight and level flight

[wolf78]

The 707 barrel roll was a 1G maneuver, so there was no increased stress on the airframe over a straight and level flight.

You're right. I know it's not that demanding a maneuver, I meant from an entertainment value perspective. That stunt's a legend.

[eraser2005]

No, instead of shipping out more cash because of the falling dollar, EADS/Airbus will just turn to the EU and beg for more subsidies... So they’ll still be getting subsidies claiming that airliner competition is unfair because the US “subsidizes” Boeing with defense contracts, while ignoring their own defense contracts (EADS gets nearly as high a % of revenues from such defense contracts already)... and then complaining that they need subsidies for those defense contracts because they can’t do it profitably...

No way in heck do they ever give up their subsidies on Airbus, even with every argument they have shot to death.

[stockstrader]

Great, just what we need to do--reward France. /s

This WILL hurt McCain bigtime!!

I don't think you'll see him flaunting the fact that he helped kill the Boeing tanker deal anymore--and Obama will gladly come up with the numbers of exactly how many high-paying American jobs have been lost.

[e_castillo]

I know but thats still far better than selling out to the French.