As much as it isn't fun to admit it, the evidence increasingly points to Boeing having lost the competition for the Air Force tanker contract rather badly.
The deep and abiding objections in Congress, even aside from Washington state's own delegation, were entirely predictable. Pentagon officials knew full well a decision favoring Northrup Grumman/EADS would bring a whirlwind of recriminations, not to mention some unpleasant sessions with key Members of Congress upon whom the Pentagon depends for funding and policy authorization.
Would decision makers on this contract have made a choice to shun Boeing if the competition had been anywhere near close, knowing the resulting wrath? Not unless they're exceptionally dense, which is generally not an excellent quality for any high -anking military official.
Perhaps some Air Force officials will eventually be proven to be some of the great nitwits of our time after a Congressional inquiry into the matter. Meanwhile, the more logical step locally might be to focus on embracing Boeing's commercial superiority over Airbus in the profitable wide-body class, especially with the bad bet the latter company seems to have made on the A380. It may even be better for Boeing in the long-run to focus more on that component of the company's business, including the eventual replacement and/or re-tooling for the popular 737 and 777 models.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 05, 2008 09:56 PM | Email ThisBoeing knew & approved the selection criteria.
The other guys simply offered a superior aircraft.
What is so hard to understand about this?
Seems to me Patty wants to push inferior equipment to the armed forces to support Boeing.
I think it is too late to change the rules & time to move on.
Totally unfair to Boeing who bid on the requirements as laid out in the RPF, and then the Air Force changed the rules as requested by McCain.
This whole process is beginning to smell badly.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2004263690_boeinghearing06.html
Posted by: ken on March 6, 2008 04:10 AMIf I were Boeing I'd shut up and get on with the process of making the huge backlog of 787 deliveries.
Posted by: Free Trade on March 6, 2008 05:08 AMWhat exactly is your obsession over this matter?
Knock it off man and let the process unfold. Wait for the debrief and go from there. I'm sure there are many facts and issues that we don't know about yet. If Boeing got beat on the merits - fine. If not it'll come out. What do you care what a sorry group of politicians and reporters have to say? Looks as though you're not much better then the lot of em from where i'm sitting.
I'm not trying to diagree with you on the Airbust, but why did Boeing cut up the tooling to the KC-10 Tanker after they bought Douglas?
I have friends in the AF and they just love that bird. Plus it can out perform both the 767& A330
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 6, 2008 06:16 AMAnd yes, Eric, staffers at the AF are no better than the private sector government employees. That means it more than likely wasn't a fair bid.
This is an example of why contracts weren't bid for Iraq reconstruction work. There is no way that the contractors could have a fully developed set of plans in enough detail to have a fair bid. And while I recognize that Halliburton or GE will/have mismanaged the funds, it is still the best system. Bush was right to award the contracts to the best company with the staffing and experience to contract those services.
Back to Boeing, there seems to be something fishy here.
Posted by: swatter on March 6, 2008 07:26 AMHow odd, they have the KC-10 Tanker which is far bigger bird than the 767 or 330. I wonder how it fits?
Sounds like excuses to me.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 6, 2008 07:39 AM1) It wasn't available as a platform on which to base a proposal for THIS tanker contract, unless existing airplanes were taken out of commercial service to be modified. So what's the point of bringing it up? Its water under the bridge.
2) I have a friend who flies for Hawaiian Airlines. 15 years ago, he loved flying the L-1011, which was far superior to the DC-10 as a pilot's airplane, but never competed well against DC-10 because of its higher cost and the cabin noise generated by the fuselage mounted rear engine. When they got too expensive to maintain, Hawaiian replaced them with DC-10s, but they never operated in the black due to low reliability rates and high crew and fuel costs. Then they converted to 767s and have been in the black ever since. My friend prefers the 767 hands-down over the DC-10. They are more reliable and cost less to fly. Period.
3) Three engines vs two - you can get a bigger payload with three, but if Boeing had known that "bigger" was a key acceptance criteria it could have offered a 777-based tanker with roughly the same payload as the KC-10, but powered by two vastly more efficient engines.
4) As the famous crash of that United DC-10 shows, the bird is vulnerable to hydraulic system failure after a (very unlikely) rotor failure of the number two engine mounted in the vertical stab structure. I bet you can find among the surviving passengers of that flight a unanimous wish that they had been on a 767 or a 777 rather than a DC-10. Its an OK bird, but I'd take the Boeing design any day.
Another way to look at the contract mess is this: There is only one American company that builds any airplane upon which a tanker could be based, and that's Boeing. Northrop and Grumman have never built anything like a commercial airliner. The joined company and its two predecessors have been military suppliers of fighters and bombers. But N/G is the sole remaining American aerospace company that could have competed with Boeing for this contract, and the AF procurement rules probably require a competition. Do you think Airbus would have had a chance of winning the contract if they submitted a tanker design on their own? No. But their partnership with N/G doesn't change the fact that this is 90% an Airbus award, with N/G doing the post-flight mods in the US, modifications with a boom system they have never designed or built before. I agree with Swatter - something is fishy here.
Posted by: srogers on March 6, 2008 07:57 AMBecause it was a far better bird. But using excuses that they don't have hangers large enough is a farse. Plus as a pilot myself and knowing many AF friends because of my mil service. They have all told me what they think of the whole mess.
As a person who has trained in aircraft crashes I can really argue with you on what bird to be in after a crash. Douglas used 7075-T6 machined longerons and Boeing uses much thinner hydro formed stringers... as they used in the B-17 days. If you remember the 767 that crashed at sea and came totally apart. The DC-10 hit the ground at a high rate of speed and sit held sections together, the 767 was at much slower rate and didn't
I'm a Boeing guy, but the pouting they are using now isn't cutting it!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 6, 2008 08:16 AMYour crash comparison isn't accurate either. The 767 crew was fighting a terrorist who ran them out of gas and they didn't accomplish a correct ditch procedure. They were going too fast and they banked before impact, which tore off the left wing. The DC-10 crew heroically did everything they could to get on the ground in control. Unfortunately they arrived at field elevation just as the airplane started the slow pitchdown portion of its phugoid and they touched down at a very high sink rate. That tore off the gear and broke the fuselage into sections that tumbled down the runway relatively intact, and out of the post-crash fire, thus saving many lives.
767 stringers are roll formed, not hydroformed. I've seen them being made. It doesn't matter whether they are 7075-T6 or 2024-T3; it matters whether the material and the cross-section thickness are matched to result in an acceptable level of stress under load. 7075 has a higher stress rating, but it also gets brittle faster and has a higher modulus - it is harder - which may not match the flexibility of the skins and other structure. Choice of material is more complicated than you seem to think it is.
I'm not for whining; I'm for a calm investigation and voiding the award if the truth turns out to follow the appearance of political dealing or some other corruption rather than straight technical competition.
Posted by: srogers on March 6, 2008 09:23 AMSo I ended up buying a Toyota Celica, a well made solid car. I took a lot of flack for not "buying American".
My reply was, "When Americans build a decent car again I'll buy one".
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 6, 2008 10:13 AMBut before you drink their koolaid, you may want to wait a bit for all the facts to come out.
Posted by: Seabecker on March 6, 2008 10:24 AMNitpic - Northrop is spelled with an o not a u.
Posted by: RBW on March 6, 2008 10:30 AMOn your other point, we're dependent on foreign oil because leftists won't let us drill our own oil. They'd rather have us turn our agricultural land from producing food to producing crops for ethanol, which is now driving food prices through the roof. Sorry to go off topic, but you brought it up.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 6, 2008 10:34 AMBoeing is based in CHICAGO, ILL. The US Senator is some dude named BARAK OBAMA. Note that on his Senate web page, he doesn't even mention this subject in a statement or have a press release. It's a non-issue for this Senator from Illinois.
You don't think that maybe Senator Obama is neglecting his current job in search of a better one do you? Or maybe he simply realizes that WA is a bastion for Dems already, and he needs to make points in 'bama and Mississippi.
Posted by: Seabecker on March 6, 2008 10:38 AMI also don't understand how the Boeing bid was thought to be higher risk considering that Boeing is shipping tankers to Japan and Italy right now. Has the Air Force heard of the A400 or A380?
Posted by: Paul on March 6, 2008 10:46 AMThe Airbus has MORE American sourced parts and labor than Boeing's new vaunted 787. How much of Boeing's 767 Frankentanker was going to be from American parts and labor? 65%? Much ado about nothing, except some bruised egos from Boeing fan boys.
The better bid won, deal with it. America exports hundreds of billions $$$ in defense products to other nations. It's called free trade. We cannot expect others to buy our products if we are unwilling to consider buying theirs.
Posted by: Brian Chavez on March 6, 2008 11:28 AMMonolithic Wing Spars. - Airbus has them. Again, done for cost savings - not safety of flight. Boeing builds spars with separate parts. This prevents cracks from traveling through a single piece of aluminum and compromising the whole wing. What's better for a military plane? Not monolithic - would be my guess. It doesn't lend itself to either design changes after the fact or repair of damage.
Stringers - I know something about these, both formed and machined types. Boeing planes have plenty of both. Wings have machined, fuselages have formed for the most part. Both do the jobs they were designed to do as effectively as it is possible for them to do and at the right cost. It's all been tested. If Airbus does it differently, that's their business, but it doesn't automatically make it "better" just because their design is newer.
My concern is not that Boeing got beat, but that the criteria wasn't clearly conveyed in the RFP and changes made after the bids were fairly far along constituted a "Poison Pill" for Boeing. If there is evidence of this, the competition was not fair. If McCain was responsible for giving away $40 Billion and 44,000 American jobs, he'll have to answer to voters in November.
Posted by: scott on March 6, 2008 11:52 AMYup, move your clock ahead an hour. I don't think you need to stay up until 2 AM to do this.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 6, 2008 11:59 AMRIght, and since I'm so "clueless" in thinking that the Airbus 330 platform is better, that's why Airbus/EADS won the last 4 tanker contracts pitted against Boeing right? That's also why the 767 line is set to be shut down, while Airbus still has 400 airframes from commercial interests in backlog after it's best selling year ever eh? In fact Airbus is turning up production so that they can output 11 per month in the coming years.
Almost 60% of the KC45 - A330 tanker will be from American parts and labor. Using Detroit's standards for car manufacturing this would be considered an American plane.
Besides, this allows the Airbus company to start a plant here in the USA to build the A330F series as well, which will have a couple hundred extra airframes & jobs to supply, plus allows Airbus to assemble other planes here in the USA in the future.
Congratulations Airbus / NG! Good job!
Posted by: Brian Chavez on March 6, 2008 12:14 PMBoeing has been surprised and stunned by the many recent assertions made about its KC-X Tanker proposal to the U.S. Air Force, said Jim Albaugh, president and CEO, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems, in comments made during Wednesday's Citigroup 2008 Global Industrial Manufacturing Conference in New York.
Albaugh said Boeing was surprised because the original Request for Proposal indicated that the Air Force wanted a medium-sized tanker. Yet, comments made during the Air Force press conference on Friday and leaks to the press indicate just the opposite.
"In our reading of the RFP this was never about being the biggest," Albaugh said. "This was never about who could haul more fuel. This was never about who could haul the most cargo or personnel.
"This was about deploying fuel to the fight. This was about deploying to forward runways. This was about replacing the KC-135."
If this competition was about a big airplane, Boeing would gladly have offered its 777 airliner, Albaugh said.
In fact, "we were discouraged (by the Air Force) from doing so," he said.
What's more, Albaugh said the value of Boeing's total offering is less than the competitor's, according to the information released by the Air Force during the press conference. Factor in the significant fuel-burn advantage of the KC-767 AT, and he could only assume that Boeing's tanker cost less to operate and maintain and would save the Air Force significant money over the lifetime of each aircraft.
"With regard to risk - Boeing is a single, integrated company with its assets, people and technology under its own management control - with 75 years of unmatched experience building tankers," Albaugh said.
"Northrop and (the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company) are two companies that will be working together for the first time on a tanker, on an airplane they've never built before, under multiple management structures, across cultural, language and geographic divides," he continued. "We do not understand how Boeing could be determined the higher risk offering.
"Our view is that the Air Force is buying a more costly and less capable aircraft as measured by their RFP and is taking on risk in doing so," Albaugh concluded. "We need to understand why our conclusion is different than the Air Force's."
Albaugh said that while no one contract makes or breaks a company like Boeing, "we obviously view this program as important. We are looking for understanding and to be treated fairly."
Boeing leaders expect to be debriefed by U.S. Air Force representatives on Friday and hope to understand how the company and service reached vastly different conclusions.
Posted by: scott on March 6, 2008 01:24 PMNot only was Boeing in trouble over the Tanker problem in 2003, but in May 2006 Boeing was caught with stolen Locheed rocket paper work.
They really need to clean out the whole top MGT at Boeing.
As many have said, something is very fishy.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 6, 2008 01:55 PMThe A330 is nearing its end-of-life for commercial orders, just as the 767 is. They are both of the same 25-year-old generation. You say, "Airbus still has 400 airframes from commercial interests in backlog after it's best selling year ever eh? In fact Airbus is turning up production so that they can output 11 per month in the coming years." Certainly not the A330. Are you are looking at ALL Airbus models put together??
FACT: The A330 has 40 planes on order. That's it. Source: Planespotters.
There are 881 actively flying 767s. There are 521 actively flying A330s. That's 1.7 767s for every 1 A330. If the 767 line shuts down, and the A330 sells all the planes it expects to the USAF, there will still have been more 767s made than A330s. And the A330 was Airbus's direct response/competitor to the 767. Seems to me that the profit-making commercial carriers have already spoken about which airplane is "better".
Posted by: Seabecker on March 6, 2008 01:58 PMThey can probably find cheaper houses and better lifestyles Omaha or wherever Grumman is.
Piling more money into this region only exacerbates all the lifestyle problems that already plague us.
Same thing with Ballmer's plan to "fix the Key Arena". Steve, please, don't help -- unless you want to build the stadium closer to Hunt's Point where you can enjoy the traffic all to yourself.
Posted by: John Bailo on March 6, 2008 03:02 PMhttp://www.dotsub.com/films/moredemands/index.php?autostart=true&language_setting=en_1618
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on March 6, 2008 03:14 PM
Wrong! From Airbus' own site
Firm Orders
72 A330F - Freighters
96 A330-300
192 A330-200
24 A330-MRTT
41 A340 (built on the same line as the A330 only w/ 4 engines)
That's 435 FIRM orders!!! Airbus also has to firm up approx. 50+ sales from memos of understanding signed recently. They also have another 300 options.
Now add 179 A330/KC45's to this total and they have almost 1,000 on firm order or options to purchase.
Posted by: Brian Chavez on March 6, 2008 05:36 PMSure, why not?
Keep in mind that Marine One is being replaced with the AgustaWestland EH101 helicopter. It's built in Italy and UK.
Posted by: Brian Chavez on March 6, 2008 05:40 PMhttp://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/02/25/daily67.html?ana=yfcpc
Keep in mind those are the same GE CF6 engine family that Air Force One has. Oh, and the C5 does too. And Boeing 747 & 767. As well as the DC10 and MD 11. Plus Airbus 300, 310, and 330.
The author quotes Loren Thompson, the analyst who has been talking down the KC-767 since the contract award was announced. My, how Mr Thompson's tune has changed:
Quote
"On any given mission, where you want to take the cargo is not where you need to take the fuel," said Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, a defense think tank, who is also a Lockheed Martin consultant (although not involved in the aircraft programs discussed in this article). Even the current KC-135 has some cargo capacity, but in practice, demand for tankers is so high that the plane is rarely used as a dry-cargo transport.
Northrop argues that its larger aircraft is a better tanker. The KC-30 carries about 25 percent more fuel than either the rival Boeing KC-767 or the old KC-135. The problem is, no matter how big the tanker, the number of aircraft it can refuel at once stays the same: two at most, using hoses dangling from each wingtip (the Navy method), or more often only one, using a rigid pipe called a "boom" (the Air Force approach). Either way, the number of tankers in the sky matters more than the capacity of any one plane: The Air Force has 59 big KC-10 tankers for long-range missions, but the mainstay of its tanker fleet is its 500-plus KC-135s, and the average age of that fleet is 45 years.The history of the KC-135 also shows that even these smaller tankers usually don't use their full refueling capacity. Combat aircraft almost always fly in groups, rarely solo, which means that multiple planes need refueling at the same time; so tankers have to operate in groups as well, with each tanker offloading only a portion of its capacity.
A study by Thompson and colleague Rebecca Grant showed that KC-135s usually returned to base with fuel to spare: The average fuel offloaded per tanker per flight ranged from under 50,000 pounds in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 1999 Kosovo conflict -- in which the combat planes' targets were relatively close to their bases -- to 60,000 pounds in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and 75,000 in the 2001-02 invasion of Afghanistan, where the targets were far from U.S. airfields. All of these figures are handily within the 200,000 pound capacity of the current KC-135 and Boeing's proposed KC-767, even after accounting for the tanker's own fuel needs. In this context, the Northrop KC-30's 250,000 pounds of fuel just looks like overkill.
"You can't really justify the larger plane purely on the basis of aerial refueling requirements," Thompson said, "so they have pitched it as a versatile aircraft that can do refueling, carry cargo, or carry passengers." The Air Force's C-17s are overburdened in keeping the force supplied in Afghanistan and Iraq. Northrop argues that its cargo-carrying tanker-transport could take over the job of hauling mundane bulk supplies into Iraqi airports -- for far less, incidentally, than it would cost to buy more specialized, heavy-hauler C-17s from Boeing.
Unquote
(All emphases mine.)
So, the big selling point for the Airbus tanker is that it can carry more passengers and cargo, when it is carrying passengers and cargo instead of its primary mission as a tanker.
But when exactly will it be doing that, when, "in practice, demand for tankers is so high that the plane is rarely used as a dry-cargo transport"?
The key point here (as pointed out by scott @38) is that the AF discouraged Boeing from offering the 777:
"If this competition was about a big airplane, Boeing would gladly have offered its 777 airliner, Albaugh said.
In fact, "we were discouraged (by the Air Force) from doing so," he said."
Here's another viewpoint, from someone with firsthand tanker experience:
Quote
"A330 is a non-player for a myriad of reasons. Size is its biggest constraint (I won't even mention that the boom on the A330 is a new creation from a rookie in the field and has not been tested over time like the Boeing built boom). Of the 2 existing tankers, KC-135R and KC-10, and the two competitors, A330 and Boeing 767, anyone who has been in the tanker business will say the KC-135R is the perfect tanker. The KC-10 has been a great compliment and very strong player in the strategic, dual role, boom/drogue world. To have a fleet of KC-10's would be impractical on size alone. With that being said, the A330 is 8,000 sq feet of ramp footprint larger than the KC-10 and 13,000 square feet larger than the 767, and 20,000 square feet larger than the 135. When you look at fuel loads, offload potential, fuel flow per hour, and several other factors, the Boeing 767 offers more fuel offload potential than the A330 per square foot of ramp space that it occupies. If anyone believes MOG is not an issue, (max on ground), or the number that can bedded down, does not fully understand tanker employment in combat operations. The A330 can accommodate 28 to 32 463L pallets while the 76 can hold 19 463L pallets. Why is this significant? The C-17 only can carry 18 463L pallets. We are buying a TANKER, not an airlifter, though economy says that dual role is smart business. I can tell you from first hand experience and 30+ years in the tanker business, that I don't want a tanker with ~28+ pallet positions when I go to combat."
Unquote
(All emphases mine.)
(As an aside to Army Medic/Vet, the above quotes speak to why the KC-10 wasn't relevant to the current tanker RFP.)
Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne has been a big proponent of getting Airbus to bid for the tanker contract, going back to when he was Acting Undersecretary of Defense (at the time, he was unable to get a confirmation vote, due to a hold placed by Senator John McCain - interesting how that's changed, too).
Politically, it would have been a disaster to award the tanker contract to Airbus if the Boeing tanker was evaluated as equal to, or even slightly less than, the Airbus tanker.
One way to avoid the fallout would have been to tell Boeing, "No, don't offer the 777, we're not serious about having passenger and cargo capability, we only said that to keep Airbus from withdrawing their bid", and then turn around after-the-fact and say, "Airbus got the contract because their tanker is a much better deal - it can carry much more passengers and cargo than the Boeing tanker."
Something is very fishy here. The 777 is a much better aircraft than the A330, and if the Air Force is serious about the criteria they applied, the 777 would have beaten the A330 handsdown. If the Air Force is not serious about the criteria they applied, then the 767 should have been selected, because (as noted above) the extra passenger and cargo capability, and even the extra fuel capacity, aren't worth a tinker's hoot in real-world tanker operations.
Posted by: ewaggin on March 6, 2008 07:03 PMThe NG/EADS 330 - KC45 has a much higher ability for fuel offload exceeding 20% compared to a 767. This means that you only need 4 KC45 on the tarmac compared to 5 767's. Guess which takes up less room? 4 KC45 - Airbus. LOL. So that shoots down that lame argument.
Tell ya what. If Boeing wants to file a protest that the Air Force actively discouraged them from submitting a 777 proposal fine by me. But if they don't have concrete evidence of such, and that this was a political ploy, then Boeing should be banned from submitting ANY bid to ANY US govt contract for a minimum of 7 years for willful meddling. Let's see them put their money where their mouth is.
CASE CLOSED!
Before the bids were finalized, the AF told Boeing that it believed that Boeing's schedule for the 767 tanker was risky, and that if Boeing would lengthen its schedule, that they (the AF) would lower the risk rating.
Boeing complied, even though this increased the cost of Boeing's bid.
The other thing it did was to decrease the number of tankers that Boeing could deliver by any future point in time, relative to Airbus.
And this is now being claimed as another advantage of the Airbus tanker, as Airbus plans to deliver 49 tankers by the end of 2013, as opposed to 19 by Boeing.
How many tankers would Boeing have delivered, had they not been pressured by the AF to lengthen thier schedule?
Posted by: ewaggin on March 6, 2008 07:49 PMThe CFM engines are a 50% - 50% split between GE and Snecma.
The CF6 engines are GE w/ Snecma responsible for either 10% or 20% of the program, meaning GE (America) has 90% / 80% of the work.
http://www.snecma.com/IMG/pdf/Brochure_Snecma_Gamme_Civile_VA_OK.pdf
Now the first 4 prototype aircraft that are to be built in Europe will also have their engines assembled there. Once the live production starts here in America, then the engine assembly point will also move.
Also, I point you to our Defense Secretary Gates who said:
"I believe, based on the briefings that I've received, that it was a fair competition and a merit-based decision". He also noted that defense manufacturing was a global business, something he said lawmakers understood.
"The reality is that we sell aircraft and ships and weapon systems all over the world," he said. "The four countries that I just visited in Asia and in the Middle East -- Australia, Indonesia, India and Turkey -- all have an interest in acquiring American aircraft, as an example.
"So there is a global aspect to this business, and I think that there's an understanding of that" in Congress, he said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN0547694320080305
You haven't provided a source I noticed.
But let's assume for a moment that they did tell them that. Hmmm... let's see Boeing has blown it's schedule completely now with 2 other tanker projects as well as with its 787 program by a MINIMUM of a year if not more.
So if you are the AF, are you going to let Boeing propose some insane, pie-in-the-sky schedule that is completely b.s. and unrealistic based on their most recent performance? The 767 "Frankentanker" has never flown, ever. It's a paper airplane.
The AF making Boeing "get real" with what they could really produce was a favor to them. Yes, in the REAL WORLD they would only be able to produce 19 tankers instead of a made up, lie of more. Perhaps the AF should have just disqualified Boeing for FRAUD in proposing such a preposterous scenario in the first place?
The KC45-330 frame is currently flying, and has transferred fuel. Even if Boeing wanted to submit the 777 they would have needed 3 years for designing a new 777 tanker, plus certification time.... thereby failing to meet the minimums of the RFP. (Not even taking into consideration that the 777 tanker would have failed on at least 2 if not 3 other merits as well.)
Posted by: Brian Chavez on March 6, 2008 08:10 PMI know that you meant to say that the 777 has put the A330 to death: 912 firm 777 orders, vs 435 firm A330 orders.
Also, you might be interested to know that it's the maximum fuel capacity of the A330 that is ~20% greater than the 767 (245,000 lb vs 200,000 lb), not the fuel offload.
The A330 can take off with more fuel than the 767, but it also uses more fuel.
Finally, your comparison of 4 A330 tankers to 5 767 tankers is meaningless, when placed in the context of actual tanker operations by people who actually know what they're talking about (see quotes @53).
Posted by: ewaggin on March 6, 2008 08:13 PMWho are you to say how long Boeing would take?
A tanker based on the 777 freighter (now in production) would beat the A330 in every category.
Posted by: ewaggin on March 6, 2008 08:25 PMDidn't Queen Chrissy's worthless threat to sue mean ANYTHING?
Posted by: Hinton on March 6, 2008 09:34 PMAnyway, Airbus has always been like the small dicked high school boy in the locker room. They talk big but hide under their towel. And no, there isn't a pill that is going to help.
Posted by: Seabecker on March 6, 2008 09:39 PMIf Congress and others are so concerned about foreign built parts, why not go after Boeing for their heavy use of China for parts?
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/aboutus/boechina.html
http://www1.cei.gov.cn/ce/doc/cen3/200709111956.htm
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/q2/nr_040610g.html
Posted by: Lew Waters on March 6, 2008 10:05 PMWOW! Perhaps you should tell Boeing they have 912 orders. According to Boeing themselves they have 360 airframes for the 777 to fill yet. See:
http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm?content=displaystandardreport.cfm&pageid=m25066&RequestTimeout=20000
I said the 777-200. Nothing more. The 777-200 is the only one with a comparable size to the A330, which the A330 has. Boeing has stopped making the 777-200, and only has 28 orders left for the 777-200ER.
Also, you might be interested to know that it's the maximum fuel capacity of the A330 that is ~20% greater than the 767 (245,000 lb vs 200,000 lb), not the fuel offload.
That's true. The 330 can "only" carry 20% more fuel, but it can actually offload fuel 33% faster than the 767! The KC45 can offload fuel at 8,000 lbs. per minute. 20% more fuel, 33% faster offload rate, 50% higher refueling points on the airframe (3 on KC45instead of 2 on 767). The KC45/330 can use more airports as well. Or as the AF said, NG/Airbus won 4 out of 5 categories hands down. In the final category it was a "tie". So Boeing didn't win a single category.
Stop being Boeing fan boys and use your brain. For this particular mission our men and women fighting for our country are best served flying the KC45 tanker/transport. There's nothing inherently inferior about Boeing....they just don't build the right plane for the mission.
Had Boeing not tried to screw the military and the American people 6 years ago they would have already been delivering 767 tankers. Instead they tried to screw us as taxpayers, and now 6 years later have stiff competition against a superior product that is younger in it's lifetime cycle.
Pretty simple really.
Posted by: Brian Chavez on March 6, 2008 10:56 PMLook, this deal is $35 billion over 13 years, or $ 2.7 billion per year. Of that only 42% is non-domestic, or $1.13 billion per year.
Guess what? We import 13 million barrels of oil EVERY DAY! 13 million barrels at $104 per barrel is $ 1.35 billion EVERY DAY.
Seriously, we spend more EVERY DAY on foreign oil than we will per YEAR on this new KC45. Get some perspective.
Posted by: Brian Chavez on March 6, 2008 11:06 PMYou can't figure out how to count from the link I gave you? :shock:
Seriously, go to http://www.airbus.com/en/corporate/orders_and_deliveries/# and scroll to the bottom, and it has a link to an Excel download so you can see for yourself. It has EVERY delivery listed. EVERY order. It has it broken down by airline. By region. By model. By submodel. Total orders. Orders this year.
How can you feign confusion when it's spelled out so that a 4th grader could understand it? Well, at least my 4th grade child gets it. *shrug*
Posted by: Brian Chavez on March 6, 2008 11:18 PMThe A330 is an excellent aircraft as with the entire Airbus line. That was an off the cuff ignorant remark calling it junk. Same as the meat heads that claim you won't be able to get parts. Absurd. Outside of selling the planes outright, the military gets all drawings and license to outsource all parts. So mom and pop machine shops in Kent can make servos if needed. Airbus makes a BMW compared to the Boeing Chevy line of just OK planes. Boeing got spanked for all the right reasons. Maybe the lazy B can learn something. Let us see if the epoxy 787 ever gets delivered. The bastard child of outsourcing.
Posted by: pbs7mm on March 7, 2008 10:10 AMYour clearly in the wrong country then, your tax dollars go to pay for whatever pet project has the support of the most senior politicians, double bonus tax dollars if it gets built in that senior politicians home district/state.
In your comment @49, you referred to firm orders, and I responded accordingly.
As you correctly point out, the number of unfilled orders for the 777 family is 360. This number is consistent with the number you reported @49 for the A330/A340 family.
You are mistaken, however, regarding the number of unfilled 777-200 orders. In addition to the 28 777-200ER orders, there are also 30 777-200LR orders.
The 777-200ER orders are reported at the same location; apparently you overlooked them.
I'm not surprised that you reported the number of unfilled orders. From the Airbus site, the number of firm orders for the A330 family (you should not have included the A340; it is built on the same line, but is generally regarded as competing with the 747, not the 777) is 880.
Not that different, until you consider that the A330 had a three-year head start. Since the two aircraft have been going head-to-head, the 777 has outsold the A330 by a wide margin.
Posted by: ewaggin on March 7, 2008 12:55 PMIn the meantime I take no pleasure in seeing the angst of my neighbors, or the anticipated hit the local economy may weather, but I do confess to a degree of schadenfreude watching Clueless-Patty et al taking a giant bite of s--t sandwich.
Bon appetite Patty! Maybe all the times you've crapped on our military have come home to roost between two slices of bread!
Posted by: threeoddnumbers on March 7, 2008 04:53 PMAs for Airbus being a BMW and Boeing a Chevy, simply not true. Only someone ignorant of Boeing's design style would say something like that. Boeing builds their planes with multiple redundant systems including the way the wings are designed and assembled. Airbus has a monolithic wing spar assembly, which Boeing doesn't do. Why? Because if a monolithic wing part cracks, there's no other parts to stop or contain that crack. Boeing has hundreds of parts in place of Airbus' monolithic (one part) webs that are designed to stop a major failure. Boeing uses monolithic parts, but not on anything that would down the plane if it failed.
Posted by: Scott on March 7, 2008 10:02 PMAs for Airbus being a BMW and Boeing a Chevy, simply not true. Only someone ignorant of Boeing's design style would say something like that. Boeing builds their planes with multiple redundant systems including the way the wings are designed and assembled. Airbus has a monolithic wing spar assembly, which Boeing doesn't do. Why? Because if a monolithic wing part cracks, there's no other parts to stop or contain that crack. Boeing has hundreds of parts in place of Airbus' monolithic (one part) webs that are designed to stop a major failure. Boeing uses monolithic parts, but not on anything that would down the plane if it failed.
Posted by: Scott on March 7, 2008 10:02 PMOur lawmakers are now using this measurement which will effect what type of car I will drive and the type of house I will live in, etc.
This standard should also apply here amongst others. Boeing wins.
Posted by: Ted Bundy on March 8, 2008 11:58 AMBush had an opportunity after 9/11 to fundamentally change the way we use oil. Instead, he invaded Iraq which will cost us over $2 trillion.
At this rate the AF won't be able to afford them anyway. If the dollar keeps falling, heck Airbus will be able to simply buy Boeing out. Or maybe Samsung will buy them.
Posted by: Hope Gas Tops $5 on March 8, 2008 01:26 PMIf the environmental weenies would let us drill for our own oil, wouldn't push the Ethanol farce and the phony global warming fiasco. Gas would be way under $2 per gallon. George Bush has nothing to do with those policies.
Posted by: Bennie on March 8, 2008 03:06 PMHere are some interesting articles: http://www.upi.com/Security_Terrorism/Analysis/2007/01/22/outside_view_air_tanker_crisis/9128/ Author: Loren Thompson
http://stage.nationaljournal.com/cgi-bin/ifetch4?ENG+ALL-_-ALL_PUBS+7-cr0199+1187491-REVERSE+0+25+354+F+12+142+11+iraq+AND+PD%2F01%2F19%2F2007-%3E04%2F19%2F2007
Quotes from Loren Thompson
Mr Thompson has been running down the 767 tanker since the contract award was announced, but he was singing a very different tune a year ago. At that time, he said that the A330 tanker would be uncompetitive, unless it got credit for its higher passenger and cargo carrying capability.
At about the same time (1/8/2007), NG/Airbus announced they were going to withdraw their bid, unless they got credit for the extra passenger and cargo capability (see Wikipedia entry on KC-45).
On 1/30/2007 the AF issued the final RfP. As we know now, the AF gave NG/Airbus what they wanted, and that formed at least a large part of basis for awarding the contract to NG/Airbus.
One problem with this is (see second article), that in real-world operations, tankers are in such high demand that they are almost never used to carry passengers or cargo. That being the case, what value is added by the A330 being able to carry more passengers or cargo than the 767?
Another problem is that, according to Mr Thompson's own study (see second article), the KC-135 returned from refueling missions with fuel to spare, having offloaded an average of 50,000 to 75,000 lb (depending on the theater of operations). At that time, Mr Thompson said, "You can't really justify the larger plane purely on the basis of aerial refueling requirements".
So, if the A330 tanker won't (in practice) be carrying passengers or cargo, and if it uses more fuel accomplish typical refueling missions, and if it costs more to maintain and hangar, and if it requires longer runways, and thus cannot be forward deployed like the 767 tanker, what exactly is the rational basis for selecting the A330 tanker over the 767 tanker?
While pondering the answer, here are some comments from someone with firsthand tanker experience:
"A330 is a non-player for a myriad of reasons. Size is its biggest constraint (I won't even mention that the boom on the A330 is a new creation from a rookie in the field and has not been tested over time like the Boeing built boom). Of the 2 existing tankers, KC-135R and KC-10, and the two competitors, A330 and Boeing 767, anyone who has been in the tanker business will say the KC-135R is the perfect tanker. The KC-10 has been a great compliment and very strong player in the strategic, dual role, boom/drogue world. To have a fleet of KC-10's would be impractical on size alone. With that being said, the A330 is 8,000 sq feet of ramp footprint larger than the KC-10 and 13,000 square feet larger than the 767, and 20,000 square feet larger than the 135. When you look at fuel loads, offload potential, fuel flow per hour, and several other factors, the Boeing 767 offers more fuel offload potential than the A330 per square foot of ramp space that it occupies. If anyone believes MOG is not an issue, (max on ground), or the number that can bedded down, does not fully understand tanker employment in combat operations. The A330 can accommodate 28 to 32 463L pallets while the 76 can hold 19 463L pallets. Why is this significant? The C-17 only can carry 18 463L pallets. We are buying a TANKER, not an airlifter, though economy says that dual role is smart business. I can tell you from first hand experience and 30+ years in the tanker business, that I don't want a tanker with ~28+ pallet positions when I go to combat."
I have been wondering exactly what Northrop Grumman's contribution to the NG/Airbus partnership is.
One answer is provided by Loren Thompson in this article:
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/northrop-eads-team-seen-keeping-tanker/story.aspx?guid=%7B1D3831E9%2D9698%2D453F%2D9029%2D26A6DD9B6552%7D
"Moreover, rating the planes in a warfare scenario used a complex analytical model originally developed by Northrop Grumman, Thompson said. That gives Boeing room to charge that the model wasn't accurate and was even changed to allow Northrop Grumman's participation."
How.....interesting. The software used to evaluate the tanker bids was developed by NG. I wonder what the GAO will think of that?
Here is some more fuel for the fire, from Boeing's press release:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080311/aqtu536.html?.v=1
"Boeing is asking the GAO to examine several factors in the competition that were fundamentally flawed:
-- The contract award and subsequent reports ignore the fact that in
reality Boeing and the Northrop/EADS team were assigned identical
ratings across all five evaluations factors: 1) Mission Capability,
2) Risk, 3) Past Performance, 4) Cost/Price, and 5) Integrated Fleet
Aerial Refueling Assessment. Indeed, an objective review of the data
as measured against the Request for Proposals shows that Boeing had
the better offering in terms of Most Probable Life Cycle Costs, lower
risk and better capability.
-- Flaws in this procurement process resulted in a significant gap
between the aircraft the Air Force originally set out to procure -- a
medium-size tanker to replace the KC-135, as stated in the request for
proposal -- and the much larger Airbus A330-based tanker they
ultimately selected. It is clear that frequent and often unstated
changes during the course of the competition -- including manipulation
of evaluation criteria and application of unstated and unsupported
priorities among the key system requirements -- resulted in selection
of an aircraft that was radically different from that sought by the
Air Force and inferior to the Boeing 767 tanker offering.
-- Because of the way the Air Force treated Boeing's cost/price data, the
company was effectively denied its right to compete with a commercial
derivative product, contrary not only to the RFP but to federal
statute and regulation. The Air Force refused to accept Boeing's
Federal Acquisition Regulation-compliant cost/price information,
developed over 50 years of building commercial aircraft, and instead
treated the company's airframe cost/price information as if it were a
military-defense product. Not only did this flawed decision deny the
government the manufacturing benefits of Boeing's unique in-line
production capability, subjecting the Air Force to higher risk, but it
also resulted in a distortion of the price at which Boeing actually
offered to produce tankers.
-- In evaluating Past Performance, the Air Force ignored the fact that
Boeing -- with 75 years of success in producing tankers -- is the only
company in the world that has produced a commercial derivative tanker
equipped with an operational aerial-refueling boom. Rather than
consider recent performance assessments that should have enhanced
Boeing's position, the Air Force focused on relatively insignificant
details on "somewhat relevant" Northrop/EADS programs to the
disadvantage of Boeing's experience."
All-in-all, quite a different picture than what has been previously presented.
Posted by: ewaggin on March 11, 2008 12:30 PM