Boeing gets $35 billion Air Force tanker contract

[DWCAce]

 

Story by Marc Selinger

 

The U.S. Air Force announced Thursday that it has selected Boeing’s NewGen Tanker to be its new KC-46A air refueling jet.

 

The contract award, which follows a rigorous Air Force review of industry proposals, means Boeing will build the next-generation tanker that will replace 179 of the service’s 1950s-era KC-135s.

 

Boeing officials said they are honored by the selection and will meet the Air Force’s requirement to deliver the first 18 combat-ready aircraft by 2017.

 

“This contract award would not have been possible without the hundreds of Boeing employees across the entire company, and the thousands of our industry teammates, who remained laser-focused on our commitment to offer a solution that is first in capability and best in value,” said Dennis Muilenburg, president and CEO of Boeing Defense, Space & Security. “This award is also a tribute to the Air Force and Defense Department officials who worked so tirelessly to make this procurement process fair, ultimately resulting in the selection of the right plane for the mission. We look forward to working with our Air Force customer to deliver this much needed capability to the servicemen and women we are honored to serve.”

 

Tankers are critical to the U.S. armed forces, extending the range of fighters, bombers and other aircraft by transferring fuel to them in flight. The NewGen Tanker combines the latest, most advanced technology with the proven Boeing 767 commercial airplane.

 

The NewGen Tanker has a modern, digital flight deck based on the new Boeing 787 commercial airliner, and advanced defensive systems so it can safely operate close to the fight. It meets or exceeds all Air Force requirements.

 

Boeing will build the NewGen Tanker with a low-risk approach. It will use a trained and experienced U.S. work force at existing facilities in Washington state and Kansas, and an existing supplier network in more than 40 states.

 

Boeing has built and supported tankers for more than 60 years, and company employees said they are rolling up their sleeves to begin work on this newest tanker right away.

 

To learn more about the KC-46A tanker, visit www.UnitedStatesTanker.com.

 

From Boeing.com.

 

http://www.boeing.co...t_02_24_11.html

 

http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/splash/Announcement

Edited February 25, 2011 by FastCargo

[+GrinchWSLG]

All right! As a resident of Washington state, and someone who works with KC-135s on a daily basis, I'm very happy to see this. 2017 is a bit far off but I can't wait to see them.

[+76.IAP-Blackbird]

... That`S how the world works

[SayethWhaaaa]

Yeah, there's really no surprise about this. Boeing was never going to lose this bid any more than we could see the USAF buying Chengdu J-10s at any point. In a country that essentially invented and defined the airliner, it just seemed politically untouchable to me (Too 'European' in the home of Boeing), despite winning the initial go-ahead. I dunno, that's just how it seemed to me...

Edited February 25, 2011 by Say What?!

[Derk]

No surprise and in the end probably fair enough, because very simply, Boeing is building good planes, but they will always have the edge over just about everything: If something is built by them, it will be bought by the US.

Only if there is a requirement for stuff that is really not on their menu, foreign builders will be used is my feeling. The question remains why Airbus was invited in the first place and why they were originally declared the winners ...

 

Houdoe,

 

Derk

[Capitaine Vengeur]

Probably that Airbus has not been able to buy enough US Congressmen...

[JediMaster]

Part of the reason EADS won last time was certainly an unconscious backlash against Boeing for the leasing debacle early in the decade that saw the one woman thrown in jail.

 

As for why they were invited to bid, it's because there was no one else! The only other company to make strategic tankers (not tactical ones like the KC-130) was McDonnell Douglas, and Boeing bought them out mid-90s. That meant ONLY Boeing was left building planes in the US that were suitable for that role, and as a general rule the DoD dislikes sole-source contracts (as the leasing deal was going to be). So, you invite the dark horse to bid just for the sake really of getting Boeing to keep its prices low.

[+Gocad]

Part of the reason EADS won last time was certainly an unconscious backlash against Boeing for the leasing debacle early in the decade that saw the one woman thrown in jail.

 

As for why they were invited to bid, it's because there was no one else! The only other company to make strategic tankers (not tactical ones like the KC-130) was McDonnell Douglas, and Boeing bought them out mid-90s. That meant ONLY Boeing was left building planes in the US that were suitable for that role, and as a general rule the DoD dislikes sole-source contracts (as the leasing deal was going to be). So, you invite the dark horse to bid just for the sake really of getting Boeing to keep its prices low.

 

Didn't they try the same route with the F-35?

 

Anyway, it should be interesting to see whether Boeing will able to construct their yet unbuilt and untested aircraft on time and on budget...

[rotarycrazy]

Every country protecs its national industry,boeing has a real good plane, it is what the USAF needs if the USAF wanted a bigger and more expensive tanker they would have asked for it.

 

I dont see what the big fuss is all about, it is just a moded KC-767.

[JediMaster]

I'm not sure what you mean about the F-35. Unlike large planes, we have both LockMart and Boeing (via aquisitions) still in the fighter business.

For bombers, only NorthGrum has built any in the last 20 years.

With cancellation of Comanche, only Boeing (again via aquisitions) builds attack helos.

Sikorsky has been the only maker of utility/assault helos.

Only one company builds aircraft carriers, only one builds subs.

 

The slow pace of weapons development and few numbers means that we can't really afford multiple contractors building them anymore, but that also means they get to "name their price."

[Derk]

Well, all sounds very logical. Question remains why Airbus made a bid at all when there is nothing in it for them except publicity ??

 

Houdoe,

 

Derk .

[FastCargo]

Well, all sounds very logical. Question remains why Airbus made a bid at all when there is nothing in it for them except publicity ??

 

Because there is plenty of historical precedent to not buy US made aircraft.

 

The Harrier (license manufactured).

CASA HC-144A Ocean Sentry

Dassault HU-25 A/C Guardian

VC-143 Medium Range Command and Control Aircraft

Aérospatiale HH / MH-65 C/D Dolphin

 

And those are just what I can think of right off the top of my head (or that I found on the USCG website).

 

Quite frankly, at this point, it doesn't matter if the deal was completely straight or totally crooked...because the whole process was so politically charged and dorked up in unimaginable ways, someone is going to cry foul no matter what the outcome would have been. Frankly, if there was a true 3rd player, I'd have gone with them just to figuratively smack Airbus and Boeing upside the head.

 

FC

[Derk]

Because there is plenty of historical precedent to not buy US made aircraft.

 

The Harrier (license manufactured).

CASA HC-144A Ocean Sentry

Dassault HU-25 A/C Guardian

VC-143 Medium Range Command and Control Aircraft

Aérospatiale HH / MH-65 C/D Dolphin

 

And those are just what I can think of right off the top of my head (or that I found on the USCG website).

 

Quite frankly, at this point, it doesn't matter if the deal was completely straight or totally crooked...because the whole process was so politically charged and dorked up in unimaginable ways, someone is going to cry foul no matter what the outcome would have been. Frankly, if there was a true 3rd player, I'd have gone with them just to figuratively smack Airbus and Boeing upside the head.

 

FC

 

I most certainly agree with you on the politics scr...ng up things. It looks like the examples you name were either bought in relatively smaller numbers or not very expensive stuff in the first place, or- in the case of the Harrier- nothing built in the US was comparable. And of course it was built in license (the engine too?)

The only thing I can think of where a US plane was beaten is in the case of the B57 Canberra vs. the Martin XB-51 (and for that matter the B-45 Tornado and the AJ... Savage). But even there it was a case of license building (by the same Martin company !!)

I think Airbus was scr...wed, not so much for not getting the order in the end but for being lured into making the bid in the first place (though I don't know if there is any payment involved in making a bid after being invited to do so)

 

Houdoe,

 

Derk

Edited February 26, 2011 by Derk

[JediMaster]

There was a reason why Northrop failed to submit for this latest bid, and that's quite likely that they figured they weren't going to win and they'd already spent the (unrecoverable) money to prepare a bid before. EADS did it this time, so it was their money they spent instead. Making a bid takes a lot of people a very long time to do, so those salaries are the cost of the bid because there's nothing else they can do while working it.

 

I'll add the C-27 to FC's list, including the C-27J, which was to have an assembly line here in FL but IIRC that was dropped and now we're just getting all the ones on order from Europe.

 

 

So in short, while in reality the EADS tanker would be just as much a US plane as Boeing's (because Boeing has so much of their stuff built outside the US and shipped here for final assembly), the fact that this thing was so hugely public and political really did mean any win that wasn't Boeing was going to be protested in Congress even if not by the contractor. In fact, that's just what happened last time. If the GAO hadn't ruled that the USAF FUBAR'd that process and got them to cancel it, you can bet there would've been many in Congress on the warpath.

 

Those behind the EADS bid, like the ones from Alabama, are simply not as powerful as the Boeing-supporting ones are.

 

 

[+ravenclaw_007]

i just hope that the next time a project like this is up in europe that our politician make the same decissions and buy only from european manufacturer , then let´s see what comes across the pond

[JediMaster]

I guess you didn't read what came before. They DID. It was called the A400M.

[sparkomatic]

Boeing was going to win, regardless, which is a shame. This is not the Boeing of the B-17 and B-52 legend...this is "new coke" Boeing as in same name, bad taste.

 

What puzzles me is 2017?!?!?! The 767 has been around awhile, and there are other nations already flying the KC767...so why does Boeing need 6 years for something they already build?

 

But I guess it is like how they are behind on the new 747-800...again, an old design being updated...can you imagine if they had to build it from scratch? That is probably the real reason the XF-32 lost, Boeing would have needed until 2033 to get to IOC.

 

Either way, it will be late, over priced, and generally a disappointment.

 

cheers

[+Dave]

Either way, it will be late, over priced, and generally a disappointment.

 

Sounds like a friends of mines ex wife....

[+Veltro2k]

 

Story by Marc Selinger

 

The U.S. Air Force announced Thursday that it has selected Boeing’s NewGen Tanker to be its new KC-46A air refueling jet.

 

The contract award, which follows a rigorous Air Force review of industry proposals, means Boeing will build the next-generation tanker that will replace 179 of the service’s 1950s-era KC-135s.

 

Boeing officials said they are honored by the selection and will meet the Air Force’s requirement to deliver the first 18 combat-ready aircraft by 2017.

 

“This contract award would not have been possible without the hundreds of Boeing employees across the entire company, and the thousands of our industry teammates, who remained laser-focused on our commitment to offer a solution that is first in capability and best in value,” said Dennis Muilenburg, president and CEO of Boeing Defense, Space & Security. “This award is also a tribute to the Air Force and Defense Department officials who worked so tirelessly to make this procurement process fair, ultimately resulting in the selection of the right plane for the mission. We look forward to working with our Air Force customer to deliver this much needed capability to the servicemen and women we are honored to serve.”

 

Tankers are critical to the U.S. armed forces, extending the range of fighters, bombers and other aircraft by transferring fuel to them in flight. The NewGen Tanker combines the latest, most advanced technology with the proven Boeing 767 commercial airplane.

 

The NewGen Tanker has a modern, digital flight deck based on the new Boeing 787 commercial airliner, and advanced defensive systems so it can safely operate close to the fight. It meets or exceeds all Air Force requirements.

 

Boeing will build the NewGen Tanker with a low-risk approach. It will use a trained and experienced U.S. work force at existing facilities in Washington state and Kansas, and an existing supplier network in more than 40 states.

 

Boeing has built and supported tankers for more than 60 years, and company employees said they are rolling up their sleeves to begin work on this newest tanker right away.

 

To learn more about the KC-46A tanker, visit www.UnitedStatesTanker.com.

 

From Boeing.com.

 

http://www.boeing.co...t_02_24_11.html

 

http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/splash/Announcement

 

 

kewl should be easy to modify my Italian KC-767 to the Kc-46a

 

Ed

[JediMaster]

Well, yes and no. For practical purposes you could easily. If you wanted to be accurate, though, the KC-46 will have a different wing. It's not a true adaptation of any one 767, it's got the fuselage from one, the wing from another, a cockpit from somewhere else...