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 ...
We are becoming dependent instead of independent. Stupid long term decision. IMO
Boeing would provide American jobs. You are sending jobs to France. They refused us airspace once. You think they might refuse us parts in a national security crisis...its a bad decision and will impact this election.
You are probably right-throw Americans out of work so we can help improve the economy for the French who will always hate us no matter what. Good decision (sarcasm)
So we get a superior tanker beginning in 2013 that will be built at a rate of one per month to replace just the 139 KC-135E's flown by Air National Guard units. The purpose of the original KC-767 leasing program was to accelerate the acqusition of modern tankers to replace the least capable model of the KC-135 still in use. I understand that the lease prices were high and there was graft and corruption involved, but in 2008 there would have been 100 new KC-767 tankers flying if we had started building 20 tankers a year in 2003. They would be carrying the majority of the workload in Iraq and Afghanistan today, and KC-135R's could have already been redeployed to National Guard units.
At the proposed buy rate, the National Guard tankers won't be replaced till 2024 or really 2027 when you consider that the 139 number came after retiring 20 KC-135E's. The buy of 179 tankers replaces the National Guard tankers plus adds 20 by 2027. What about the other 400+ KC-135R tankers and C-135R's currently operated by the USAF? How many of them will be replaced before their retirement date of 2040? The numbers don't add up.
If Boeing wanted to, it could increase the output of the existing 767 line from 1 per month to 5 for 6 per month. It would take a couple of years to get the long lead time items ordered, but if they added 4 tankers per month to their line beginning in 2010, they could fill most of the 179 plane order before the EADS factory in Alabama starts cranking out planes in 2013. If 20 planes per year had be acquired starting in 2003, we'd have 100 new tankers now and 200 new tankers in 2013.
According to GlobalSecurity.org, it costs $59 million per year just to maintain the engines on those relics.
By the year 2000 engines for 139 E-models require $59M/year for maintenance, while engines for 408 R-models only require $4M/year.-135.
So we get a superior tanker beginning in 2013 that will be built at a rate of one per month to replace just the 139 KC-135E's flown by Air National Guard units. The purpose of the original KC-767 leasing program was to accelerate the acqusition of modern tankers to replace the least capable model of the KC-135 still in use. I understand that the lease prices were high and there was graft and corruption involved, but in 2008 there would have been 100 new KC-767 tankers flying if we had started building 20 tankers a year in 2003. They would be carrying the majority of the workload in Iraq and Afghanistan today, and KC-135R's could have already been redeployed to National Guard units.
At the proposed buy rate, the National Guard tankers won't be replaced till 2024 or really 2027 when you consider that the 139 number came after retiring 20 KC-135E's. The buy of 179 tankers replaces the National Guard tankers plus adds 20 by 2027. What about the other 400+ KC-135R tankers and C-135R's currently operated by the USAF? How many of them will be replaced before their retirement date of 2040? The numbers don't add up.
If Boeing wanted to, it could increase the output of the existing 767 line from 1 per month to 5 for 6 per month. It would take a couple of years to get the long lead time items ordered, but if they added 4 tankers per month to their line beginning in 2010, they could fill most of the 179 plane order before the EADS factory in Alabama starts cranking out planes in 2013. If 20 planes per year had be acquired starting in 2003, we'd have 100 new tankers now and 200 new tankers in 2013.
According to GlobalSecurity.org, it costs $59 million per year just to maintain the engines on those relics.
By the year 2000 engines for 139 E-models require $59M/year for maintenance, while engines for 408 R-models only require $4M/year.-135.
I doubt that will ever be a problem with Sarkozy. Reagan had a way of making a point on that issue as well.
Why do you think that Airbus is French? Airbus is a consortium of countries.
I’ll second that. I also read that the plane Boeing will base the tanker on is being phased out. Why should we buy a plane that will no longer have parts made for it? It’s just bad business.
There will be parts available for the 767 for decades to come.
There are still parts available for the B-52, the last of which was built nearly 50 years ago.
Believe it or not every battery we use to power precision guided weapons is made in China.
I’m getting mightily sick of this. Yes, I’ll root for Boeing over Airbus. I’ve snickered as the A380 has hit problem after problem, and marveled at the beauty (and apparent marketplace success) that is the 787. But I’m sure that the folks in the Air Force did plenty of due diligence, and I trust their judgment. More than that, I’m pretty sure they would have preferred to award the contract to Boeing if the competition had been even close. Boeing was expected to win this, Boeing was favored to win this, and Boeing lost this. Unless there was undue interference (i.e. bribery), that’s just tough cookies for Boeing. Listening to the politicans squabbling about it has turned my stomach. Why not let the soldiers, rather than the politicians, make this decision?
I made my living flying Boeing KC-135’s for years; I doubt that you did. If Boeing had wanted this contract badly enough, they could have won it.
The got outsold. Airbus handed their freakin’ lunch to ‘em.
I loved the -135, but I want those following in my footsteps to have the best equipment, and any more....I don’t give a flying fiddler’s damn where it’s made. If America wants to reclaim her manufacturing crown, let her stand UP and take the damned thing.
I’m sick of the whining.
If a weak dollar is “supposed” to be great for US Products then how can Airbus beat the price?
Today the USD is but .065 of a EURO. and it’s sliding rapidly.
This is not the purchase of a computer system or public parks project but a Military defense project. 2nd largest one in USAF history.
The day that the US no longer allows us to make the bullets but expects our kids fight using nations that oppose us equipment - the pact is off!
It may be the only way to stop future off shoring of defense projects is to vote Barrack Huessin.
SAD, SAD day for America.
Interesting thread on the tanker deal that might benefit from your knowledge. There appears to be a dearth of it being flung about.
I would like the military to have the best also. However, the national security issues at stake here really demand that such planes and other weapons be manufactured from start to finish in the US. Also, you assume that our government chose the best plane. This is debatable in my opinion. I hope the contract wasn’t awarded to the company that could provide the most cash rewards (campaign and otherwise) to our Senators and other elected officials...but I fear it was.
Isn’t that the truth...sad indeed.
Folks got mighty quiet around here when the 787 ran into some of the same problems that bedeviled the 380. There was some talk that Boeing tanked on the tanker because of the resources being eaten up trying to fix the 787.
The reason Boeing was expected to win was because they had a lower bid. There was some vague talk about superior quality, but no specifics. I think the fix was in. The Air Force better be careful and have all their ducks in a row because if a Dem gets in it will be investigated-count on it. In my opinion, this deal may have cost the GOP the state of Ohio.
So Dicks (D-WA) can be a dick and hold out money if the decision can’t be reversed. He’ll cut off the nose to spite the face.
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.