Posted on 03/02/2008 2:51:03 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
What could have been a done deal for the Boeing Co. five years ago came down to a two-horse race and finally a multibillion dollar loss for Everett on Friday in the sweepstakes to supply the Air Force with new jet refueling tankers.The Air Force's announcement that the $35 billion deal goes to Northrop-Grumman and Europe's Airbus parent, EADS, angered members of Washington's congressional delegation and raised the prospect of congressional hearings on the decision.
"We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military," six members of the congressional delegation said in a joint statement. "This is a blow to the American aerospace industry, American workers and America's men and women in uniform."
"I was shocked by the announcement today that the Air Force intends to award the contract for the next generation of Air Force refueling tankers to the Airbus-Northrop Grumman team, and I believe there will be real skepticism among the defense-related committees in Congress," said Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash. Dicks is a powerful member of a Defense Appropriation Committee, and funding of the tankers will have to go through his panel.
"While we will await the debriefing of the Boeing team to learn how and why the decision was made, I remain convinced that the Boeing 767 tanker version would have been an extremely capable aircraft that would have created 40,000 U.S. jobs, including 9,000 in Washington state," Dicks said.
...............
Congressional members say they hope the decision wasn't influenced by a Boeing procurement scandal five years ago. And they expect Boeing to protest the decision.
...............
The GAO has 100 days to deny or uphold a protest.
(Excerpt) Read more at heraldnet.com ...
It depends on whether the USAF would want a 747F cargo/tanker aircraft to supplement the dwindling number of C-5's operating in the future. The nose door would allow a 747 to take some oversized cargoes that otherwise would require a C-5A or C-5M. Only the 49 surviving C-5B's, 2 C-5C's, and 1 C-5A will undergo the RERP program. On the other hand perhaps the USAF should consider buying some used 747-400 passenger aircraft converted to 747-400BCF that do not have nose doors. This would have a much lower acquisition cost than new build aircraft, and due to low utilization rates of military aircraft, would still serve the USAF for decades into the future. The relatively low number of cycles on used 747's compared to shorter haul aircraft means that they have lots more life left in them compared to similar vintage narrow bodied commercial transports.
At 2400 nm the 777 could offload about 200,000 lbs of fuel and still fly home; the A-380 could offload about the same 200,000 lbs of fuel because it gets one-third the fuel mileage in spite of its greater capacity. The 747-8 would be able to offload about 300,000 lbs of fuel and still fly home to the East Coast. For comparison, the KC-45 (A330-200) has a total fuel capacity of about 250,000 lbs and the KC-10 about 350,000 lbs.
Bottom line -- we need a few hundred 747-8 tankers.
Or we need to make darn sure we have refueling bases every 2400 nm between the US and wherever we may need to send a few hundred cargo aircraft with troops and equipment which need to be on the ground with a few days instead of a few weeks (by sea).
Wow! VERY nicely done! You’ve got me sold, I’ll take 100 KC-747s, and throw in the nose loading door. Oh, by the way, can I get those in black? Air Superiority Gray is so 80s.
It would be a good concept but the problem with a BWB is there is no roll-on/roll-off capability.
According to the Airforce, there are currently 111 C-5A/B/C/M’s in service with a further 14 in storage.
All of the active, and most if not all of the reserve and ANG aircraft will be brought up to the M standard starting with the B and C models which represent the 52 that are with the active force that will extend their service life out to 2040.
No, the USAF cancelled the RERP for the C-5A fleet. Only the B and C-models will be reengined. The one C-5A that underwent the RERP for test purposes will be the only one to be reengined. All the C-5A's remaining in service will undergo the AMP to replace the existing analog avionics with a digital avionics and a glass cockpit. I'm sure that with 52 planes undergoing the RERP and 14 of the eariest C-5A's being retired, there will be lots of spare parts available to keep the C-5A fleet going for at least a couple of decades.
They axed the planned upgrade of the A model due to projected cost overruns and an uncertainty that there will be any benefit to investing in the A model.
IIRC, the A's still go through the first phase which upgrades their avionics to modern standards.
The AMP was only about $4 million per plane, and many of the ANG pilots are used to flying other planes with glass cockpits. Also the digital avionics are much easier to maintain, and they're more reliable. With so many parts getting replaced on the 52 C-5's going through the RERP, there will be plenty of parts that can be refurbished as spares for the remaining C-5A's.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.