Jump to content

Boeing-Airbus tanker competition reopened by USAF


Slater

Recommended Posts

Thought this was an interesting development, although this so steeped in politics that discussion may be necessarily limited. FWIW, the USAF originally selected the Airbus KC-45, but this was overturned by a protest followed by a re-competition:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/now/us-reopen-boeing-airbus-bidding-050729747.html

Edited by Slater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the beginning it seemed fairly straightforward - take a 1980's vintage 767 airframe, add refueling gear and what is essentially a 787 cockpit, and off you go. Of course, never mind that the USAF preferred the Airbus KC-45, but that's another tale by itself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, spruecutter96 said:

Does Airbus have any factories in the US

 

Airbus (actually EADS) had partnered with Northrop Grumman and their intention was to build the KC-45 at a new faciliy located in Mobile Alabama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the KC-45 had gone forward, it'd have been put together in a new factory which was to be built in Mobile, AL.

 

Airbus did, subsequently, build the factory and it builds/assembles A320s. One of the Alabama senators is on the Armed Services Committee, which may give EADS a bit of extra 'oomph' on that side of things, particularly given all that's gone wrong with the KC-46. I've no doubt that if EADS decided to bid, the rather chequered history of the KC-46 and a comparison with the RAF/RAAF experience with Voyager/KC330 will probably make an appearance in the debate over which to procure; there is some pretty bi-partisan criticism of the complete horlicks that KC-46 has been to date.

 

2 hours ago, PhantomBigStu said:

Given the age of the kc-10 fleet is pretty low vs the 135. not going to be replaced for decades, and I can't see the USAF seriously ditching further KC46 orders for the Airbus 

 

The original Boeing/Airbus spat was over the KC-X programme; this is the KC-Y programme, the 'Bridge Tanker' which will come into service when the KC-46's deliveries are scheduled to be completed in 2029, although full rate production of the '46 has been pushed back to 2024 (7 years late). If - as could well happen - there are still issues with the KC-46 as the decision on KC-y is taken, it may be that the political pressure to adopt a different airframe will be almost insurmountable.

 

On the flip side, Boeing has lost a lot of money on KC-46, and KC-Y might offer the opportunity to recoup some of that if they win - I don't think they'll be shying away from a bid, somehow.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But of course the USAF won't want to simply buy the Voyager/KC330 as it stands. Like the KC-46 programme before it, there will be a long line of mods that need to be integrated into the Airbus airframe. Toilets anyone? Isn't that one of the issues with the KC-46?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the USAF realised it missed the boat when the initial KC-45 contract was rebid.

 

As mentioned, there are 10+ Air Forces using the KC-30/A330MRTT compared to 3 signed up for the KC-46. The Airbus product has been operational for over 10 years with the RAAF and has integrated very well with the majority of USAF receivers. I think this will be the foot in the door to the USAF for Airbus they were looking for all those years ago. They will also get an off the shelf capability that works, yes there will be some system tweaking but that will not the airworthiness and operational capability side of things.

 

As I recall the tender the KC-46 won was dumbed down so the KC-45/A330MRTT became 'too much airplane' for supposedly what the USAF needed. Tell that to all those USAF/USN receivers that collected fuel from RAAF KC-30s over Iran and Afghanistan for the last 7 years an have been waiting for the KC-46 to become operational.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having read up on the subject, had no idea just how bad the problems were with the KC-46, maybe not so ridiculous if their are orders for the Airbus....and another major blow for Boeing.....not having much luck are they. 787 spontaneously combusts, 787 engine issues that persist to this day (though more RR's problem still has reflected badly on them), 737-Max disaster, KC-46, and building an even bigger 777 model just before a global pandemic that has killed off the superjumbo market..........

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John B (Sc) said:

Ouch. I wasn't aware there were still so many problems. Embarrassing for a company as experienced  as Boeing !

 

... and don't forget their Starliner crew transport to the ISS: years late, massive cost overruns and dumb technical errors.

 

Boeing has been losing its experience base for many years. Their strength in engineering is now gone: retirements, quits and the inability of the company to interest young engineers in a career versus the graphics/software industry has now become an existential issue for them. In my time in industry, I've noticed that - while one misfortune motivates engineers to stay and fix things - multiple program failures tend to drive people away, because they perceive that executive management has failed.

 

In the Seattle area alone, there are over 300 computer graphics companies, plus Amazon, Blue Origin and many other growing, modern companies: these employers substantially didn't exist 20 years ago. Boeing, famous for layoffs and (relatively) poor employment benefits/standards simply can't compete for the best engineers.

 

Additionally, Boeing has been running down ever since the "reverse takeover" by McDonnell-Douglas management a generation ago resulted in short term profit goals.

 

All of these factors have now come home to roost.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Slater said:

Boeing's military side has been subsisting on the 40+ year old F-15 and F/A-18 programs to a significant degree. Not to mention the seemingly immortal Chinook.

The C-17 was a rather good product, no? but seemed to be not sufficiently beneficial to improve upon...

 

The Apache already is more like your Chinook category... 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, exdraken said:

The C-17 was a rather good product, no? but seemed to be not sufficiently beneficial to improve upon...

 

The Apache already is more like your Chinook category... 

Interesting that all the aforementioned aircraft were originally McDonnell Douglas products.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2021 at 3:55 PM, spruecutter96 said:

Does Airbus have any factories in the US? I would have thought that would be the only way they'd even be in the running. Protecting American jobs and the like.... 

 

Chris. 

 

On 8/15/2021 at 4:36 PM, Richard E said:

 

Airbus (actually EADS) had partnered with Northrop Grumman and their intention was to build the KC-45 at a new faciliy located in Mobile Alabama.

That's the reality. Despite all the partisan America V Europeans nonsense . The fundamental reality is that Airbus have already created American jobs. Thousands of them. Theyve been building Airbus airliners in Mobile Al for some time now. Plus many of the components in Airbuses are American made, 50 or 60% is a figure I recall. 

 

Boeing is in trouble for many of the reasons @KevinK pointed out. They may have to be bailed out. 

 

All rather ignominious. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just another observation: regardless of their US-manufactured content, EADS will still need a US Prime Contractor as a partner on any bid they might make. The basic reasons are that their aircraft will need to be (1) procured under US DoD regulations and (2) integrated into existing defense architecture/operations/procedures, etc. It's quite a big, time-consuming job, with the potential to derail the purchase if not understood and executed well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, exdraken said:

Airbus/ Eurocopter somehow managed with the H145...(supposedly without Fenestron tailrotor for fear of technology transfer!) - definitely to my surprise!

 

Agreed! Although it tends to be much easier to sell into the Armies than Air Forces or Navies, at least in the Western world.

 

Air Forces/Navies are highly-technical services who want to "dot the Is and cross the Ts", whereas Armies are much more user-oriented. Many years ago, an Army helicopter mast-mounted sight specification was summarized by the Army procurement official as "Fundamentally, we're looking for a mirror on a stick". Refreshing, and unlikely to be said by the Navy or Air Force.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2021 at 8:37 PM, Slater said:

Interesting that all the aforementioned aircraft were originally McDonnell Douglas products.

Well, one of them.  The C-17 came from Douglas, the F-18 started at Northrop, the CH-47 wouldn't be around if it weren't for Vertol, and the AH-64 was invented by Hughes.  But there does seem to be remarkably little actual Boeing stuff in their range, doesn't there?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...