[Rush104]

Originally Posted by Cavtanker

Maybe this is a way the U.S. can mend international relationships with European countries.

That could have quite a bit to do with it. This may help with future basing rights and airline route negotiations, among other things.

[David Hingtgen]

A lot of what I'm seeing, is that Boeing flat-out offered the wrong-size plane. If they'd offered a 777 variant, that would have been a shoe-in: All-American, and with the capacity and range of the A330. But since Boeing already had tanker 767s in production for other nations, they figured that the "home-grown" and "available now" aspects would make up for it not actually being quite what the USAF wanted. And would cost Boeing almost nothing to develop.

I've also read that in every other KC-767 vs A330MRTT contest, the A330 wins hands-down. Nobody who has compared the two has selected the 767. I'm a huge 767 fan (my fave airliner, and I like airliners more than military planes), but it just seems like for a big transport-tanker, the A330 is better.

[Fly Navy 75]

Hundreds of USAF tanker pilots are depressed over this one because they just lost a free 767 type rating (needed for their future airline careers). That sucks.

[David Hingtgen]

But they'd have A330 ratings, which gives them an automatic A340 rating, and means you're like 2 days' training away from an A320 rating. Though if you're 767 rated, you're also 757 rated.

[Hoverbug]

Originally Posted by Rush104

That could have quite a bit to do with it. This may help with future basing rights and airline route negotiations, among other things.

The following sheds some interesting light on the decision:

Decision may mark shift in strategic priorities. Aviation Week (3/4, Fulghum) reported, "One interesting outcome of the U.S. Air Force tanker decision is the further shift in U.S. national strategic priorities that it indicates -- toward the Pacific Ocean." The Northrop/EADS aircraft "can fly the longer distances, and carrying more people and cargo, required for rapid, trans-Pacific Ocean deployments." Aviation Week noted, "The Air Force's move follows along with Army and Navy-Marine Corps build-ups in the Pacific as well, all of which followed the 2005/2006 Quadrennial Defense Review under Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon administration," which "announced a strategic shift from Atlantic to Pacific oceans, especially eyeing China, North Korea and potential hotspots triggered by Islamic extremists in Indonesia or The Philippines, for instance."

[timbo]

Originally Posted by SkyBuffalo

There was a huge uproar over the decision here in Wichita - ye old "Air Capitol". Everyone was expecting the contract to go to Boeing, which has one of its main assembly plants here. The contract going to Boeing would have brought tons of jobs to the city.

The main questions people are asking :

1.) Why would the U.S. government award the contract to a foreign company (lots of French jobs created, mostly) when it could have awarded it to a U.S. company and created lots of jobs for U.S. workers? Basically, they might pay a bit more for the planes, but it's better for the U.S. economy overall.

2.) Why award the contract to Grumman/Northrop & Airbus, companies which have never built a tanker, unlike Boeing?

Believe me, from what I've heard on the news here, the Pentagon people who made this decision are gonna get a nasty grilling to prove their case - we've got Senators steamin' mad over the news. It really does seem kinda whack! Even the U.S. government is deciding to outsource big contracts. Might as well get it overwith and rename the country China West, brought to you by Nike and Toyota.

Well here goes

1) Final assembly will be in AL in a brand new plant that will also assemble A330 freighters, so this is a net investment in the US economy and new jobs (1500) there alone. Most of the tanker systems will be handled by NG which will ALL be done in US, so the outsourcing of jobs really does not hold water. Close to 60% on the plane will be US sourced.

Would the Boeing solution created lots of Jobs - Note sure as all facilities are already in place and this will just have them assembling them at a tick over rate. Lets face it the 767 is not exactly setting the commercial market alight at the moment - It's a dead duck in that market.

2) Maybe because it's a better solution??? Plus AB has built tankers and has them in service with the German AF now. Plus that are in the process of developing the A330 tanker for the RAAF and the RAF, and have kicked Boeing into touch on the last 4 global tanker contracts. Plus Boeing have not had a Stella rep in delivering new tankers to Japan and Italy

Yes politics will come into play here esp in an election year, so who knows. IMHO there will be allot of hot air floating around, but once people have been briefed on the facts then it will generally die down. Due to the history of this, it was always one contract award that would be guaranteed to be under the microscope

[timbo]

Originally Posted by David Hingtgen

A lot of what I'm seeing, is that Boeing flat-out offered the wrong-size plane. If they'd offered a 777 variant, that would have been a shoe-in: All-American, and with the capacity and range of the A330. But since Boeing already had tanker 767s in production for other nations, they figured that the "home-grown" and "available now" aspects would make up for it not actually being quite what the USAF wanted. And would cost Boeing almost nothing to develop.

I've also read that in every other KC-767 vs A330MRTT contest, the A330 wins hands-down. Nobody who has compared the two has selected the 767. I'm a huge 767 fan (my fave airliner, and I like airliners more than military planes), but it just seems like for a big transport-tanker, the A330 is better.

I really don't think Boeing has the right size plane for the job, and I wouldn't be too sure about proclaiming the 777 as a shoe-in if it had been offered. Several important factors going against it namely cost, field performance (needs a MUCH bigger runway) and economy for the job.

One of the great strengths I think of the 330 offer was that it would be able to use a substantially larger set of bases than even the 135 with a greater payload. The 767 would have reduced this, and the 777 would reduced it even further.

The 777 would make a great KC-10 replacement, but now with the 330 planned - will they even want to replace this with a second type?

[Rush104]

Originally Posted by timbo

I really don't think Boeing has the right size plane for the job, and I wouldn't be too sure about proclaiming the 777 as a shoe-in if it had been offered. Several important factors going against it namely cost, field performance (needs a MUCH bigger runway) and economy for the job.

One of the great strengths I think of the 330 offer was that it would be able to use a substantially larger set of bases than even the 135 with a greater payload. The 767 would have reduced this, and the 777 would reduced it even further.

The 777 would make a great KC-10 replacement, but now with the 330 planned - will they even want to replace this with a second type?

Another thing to consider with tanker aircraft is the effect that the tanker's wake tubulence and engine exhaust will have on a receiver aircraft while they are in formation. The aircraft chosen has to be able to safely formate and conduct A/R with receiver aircraft of different sizes.

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by SkyBuffalo

There was a huge uproar over the decision here in Wichita - ye old "Air Capitol". Everyone was expecting the contract to go to Boeing, which has one of its main assembly plants here. The contract going to Boeing would have brought tons of jobs to the city.

The main questions people are asking :

1.) Why would the U.S. government award the contract to a foreign company (lots of French jobs created, mostly) when it could have awarded it to a U.S. company and created lots of jobs for U.S. workers? Basically, they might pay a bit more for the planes, but it's better for the U.S. economy overall.

2.) Why award the contract to Grumman/Northrop & Airbus, companies which have never built a tanker, unlike Boeing?

Believe me, from what I've heard on the news here, the Pentagon people who made this decision are gonna get a nasty grilling to prove their case - we've got Senators steamin' mad over the news. It really does seem kinda whack! Even the U.S. government is deciding to outsource big contracts. Might as well get it overwith and rename the country China West, brought to you by Nike and Toyota.

To be fair, US companies sell plenty of arms (including aircraft) to foreign countries, thereby creating jobs - why should they not purchase from foreign suppliers themselves, especially when plenty of components are likely to be subcontracted from US companies?

Personally, I think this is a rather enlightened choice on the part of the Pentagon and appears to be avoiding 'pork-barrel' politics that have become the norm for a lot of US Government expenditure.

[Rush104]

Originally Posted by Cardinal

To be fair, US companies sell plenty of arms (including aircraft) to foreign countries, thereby creating jobs - why should they not purchase from foreign suppliers themselves, especially when plenty of components are likely to be subcontracted from US companies?

Personally, I think this is a rather enlightened choice on the part of the Pentagon and appears to be avoiding 'pork-barrel' politics that have become the norm for a lot of US Government expenditure.

It's not the first aircraft our military has purchased from another country. The Canberra and Hawk trainer come to mind. Of course, those designs were modified to suit our needs and built here in the U.S.