Here is the site that keeps popping up every web site i visit now.

http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/

Funny Video:(built by Americans, for Americans, in America...lol)

http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/video

DaveSims wrote on Mar 15^th, 2010 at 12:43pm:


Spitfire, Mosquito, Canberra...

The Canberra I am aware of, but I can't say I've ever seen a Spitty or Mossie in US colors.  Have seen pics of a few RAF Mustangs though.   

By Vago Muradian and John Reed - Staff writers
Posted : Monday May 17, 2010 18:17:17 EDT

Boeing is considering not bidding for the Air Force’s KC-X tanker contract, a company source said May 14.

That would leave Europe’s EADS — which earlier this year had threatened its own pullout — as the sole bidder for the multibillion-dollar prize.

CEO Jim McNerney and other executives are privately debating whether their company can even win, much less make a profit, on the fixed-price contract, one senior Boeing executive said.

“Is it conceivable that we wouldn’t bid?” the executive said. “We are proud of the fleet and want it to win the contract so the Air Force keeps flying our planes. Your heart says you have to be part of it, but a CEO’s job is to make sure that the heart doesn’t make a decision the head can’t live with.”

Boeing spokesman Damien Mills insisted May 13 that the firm will bid.

But Boeing supporters have long complained that illegal subsidies would lower EADS’ bid price, and company officials have said for several weeks that the Pentagon appears to have shifted requirements to favor the European firm.

Earlier this year, DoD officials — eager to avoid a sole-source award to Boeing in the wake of Northrop Grumman’s withdrawal — delayed the bidding deadline 60 days to allow EADS to bid. DoD also allowed the European firm to enter the contest without a U.S. firm as a partner.

Pentagon officials say they have changed neither the requirements nor the way the bids will be evaluated.

“Jim doesn’t want to be in a position that we are going to bid a losing bid,” the Boeing executive said. “It gets difficult when you’re dealing with a competitor who has flat-out said on several occasions that they’re going to underbid us. How can they do that if the list price of their plane is higher than the list on our plane? Because they are subsidized and we’re a for-profit company, so the question we’re asking is: How do we compete against four governments?”

The average cost of a Boeing 767-200ER is $133 million, of an Airbus A330-200F, $194.8 million, according to Teal Group aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia.

The executive said Boeing has not arrived at a decision. He said raising the prospect of sitting out was not a negotiating tactic.

On May 13, Pentagon officials said that they have heard nothing from Boeing about leaving the competition.
Subsidy Scuffle

Boeing executives and its supporters say Airbus, which has garnered more than half of the commercial jet market in recent years, has been powered by tens of billions of dollars in subsidies over four decades. The World Trade Organization recently resolved a 2009 lawsuit filed by the U.S. government, finding Airbus guilty of using illegal subsidies to win contracts with predatory pricing. Europe has countersued, claiming Boeing benefits from research and development tax credits.

On May 13, two Republican lawmakers from Kansas, Sen. Sam Brownback and Rep. Todd Tiahrt, introduced legislation in the U.S. House and Senate that would order the Pentagon officials who will weigh the KC-X bids to factor in the startup subsidies EADS received for its A330. Tiahrt said he estimates the subsidies to be worth about $5 million per airplane.

The Pentagon says it will not take the WTO ruling into account because EADS plans to appeal, and waiting for the outcome could add yet more years of delay to the tanker effort.

Dubbing the proposed legislation “The Boeing Bill,” EADS spokesman Guy Hicks called it “one more attempt to avoid competing on the merits of the tanker.”

Analysts Respond

A financial analyst said a prudent Boeing would consider all options.

“If Boeing can’t make a fair return for their investment, then they shouldn’t do it,” said Ron Epstein of Banc of America. “Shareholders would rather see Boeing cover its cost of capital than win an unprofitable contract. If EADS is going to bid below their cost of capital to subsidize our military, great, they should do it.”

But Aboulafia is skeptical: “It would be a very bold move if true — possibly too bold.”

Analyst David Berteau of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said he doubts that Congress will be able to write effective legislation in time to affect the competition.

He also said Boeing’s threat is unlikely to sway Pentagon officials who have said that they “prefer a competition, but they’ll move forward with only one” bidder.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/05/defense_boeing_bid_051410/

6

With a recorded vote of 410-8, the U.S. House of Representatives today adopted a bipartisan amendment offered by Reps. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), Rick Larsen (D-Wash.), Michael Turner (R-Ohio), and Russ Carnahan (D-Mo.) to the fiscal year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act to ensure a level playing field for the KC-X tanker competition. The amendment requires the Department of Defense to consider any unfair competitive advantage that European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. (EADS) and its subsidiary Airbus have gained from decades of illegal subsidies. The World Trade Organization recently ruled that Airbus received billions of dollars in illegal launch aid from European governments, including almost $5 billion used to develop the A330, EADS’ tanker platform.

Boeing released the following statement on the amendment:
"We fully support the efforts of all members of Congress who share our concern about the unfair competitive advantage that EADS/Airbus, a foreign company, gained from decades of illegal launch aid subsidies worth billions of dollars. We are encouraged by strong bipartisan support for a fair competition on a level playing field. The amendment requires the Department of Defense to take into consideration illegal European launch aid subsidies in bid evaluations for America's next tanker. It is entirely appropriate that these congressional leaders take such steps to prevent the U.S. defense industrial base from suffering the same fate as the commercial aircraft industry, where illegal subsidies have contributed to the loss of tens of thousands of U.S. aerospace jobs."

http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/blog/main/2010/05/27/boeing-statement-on-amend...;

by The Anniston Star Editorial Board
December 9, 2010

You have to give Boeing Co. and its political allies credit. When it comes to securing the $40 billion Air Force refueling tanker contract, they don’t give up.

What does it matter if Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Air Force feel that Boeing’s tactics are, in the words of U.S. Rep. Jo Bonner, R-Mobile, “underhanded.”

What do they care if their efforts represent, as U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Mobile, put it, “an unacceptable political attempt” to confuse and delay the acquisition of these much-needed planes.

Why should they follow procedure and notify U.S. Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., the ranking member and soon-to-be chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, of a bill they wanted to slip through a Congress that was hurriedly trying to finish its business and adjourn?

Who cares? Not Boeing and friends.

What Boeing’s political allies did was introduce at the 11th hour the “Defense Level Playing Field Act,” which would require the Pentagon to factor in a yet unresolved World Trade Organization dispute over subsidies to tanker companies when it selects the company to receive the contract. Gates, the Air Force and others rightly see this as having little to do with this competition. Nevertheless, Boeing got a tired and distracted Congress to approve the measure.

Sessions called it the “Boeing Preservation Act” and vowed to kill it in the Senate. Observers feel he has the support to do it. Good for Sessions.

Of course, this page wants Boeing’s competitor EADS to win the contract because it will mean a $600 million assembly facility in the Mobile area and thousands of good jobs for Alabama people.

But there are other reasons Alabamians should want EADS to prevail. The EADS tanker, defense analysts say, is better suited for what the Air Force requires.

Moreover, if the contract is let early next year, production can begin and the Air Force will sooner get the tanker that it has named its top priority.

It is disappointing to see that the Alabama, Florida and Mississippi delegations were not able to block this bill in the House, where most members were apparently caught by surprise and did not mount serious opposition to it. Now it becomes the task of Sens. Sessions and Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, to do a better job for the state and the region.

They need to be up to the task.

Read more: Anniston Star - Boeing tries the back door
http://annistonstar.com/bookmark/10805750-Boeing-tries-the-back-door

A top Boeing executive warned the Air Force that its decision on who builds the next $35 billion fleet of aerial refueling tankers should be “airtight” and thinks the contract award will come “later rather than sooner.”

“I’ve been waiting for that decision for 10 years. I’m not holding my breath,” James Albaugh, Boeing’s CEO for commercial airplanes told reporters in a wide-ranging discussion Wednesday.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47519.html#ixzz1AxW0umOe


The Air Force’s attempt to make a new fleet of tanker aircraft is in its third go-round – with the stakes between aerospace heavyweights Boeing and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. growing by the day.

In November, the Air Force slipped up, providing information about Boeing’s bid to EADS and information about EADS to Boeing. That incident led Loren Thompson, the chief executive officer of the industry-funded Lexington Institute, whose philosophical sympathies lie with Boeing, to declare that EADS was likely to win.

In light of the controversy, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has said he plans to hold hearings on the matter by Feb. 1. A date, however, has not yet been set, according to the committee.

And Albaugh said that all eyes will be on the Air Force’s next decision.

“This is going to be the most scrutinized procurement we’ve seen in a long, long time,” he said. “They should spend a lot of time making sure this is an airtight decision that they make.”

According to the Air Force, the award is “moving toward completion,” and The Hill newspaper quoted Air Force Secretary Mike Donley as saying a decision would be coming “soon.”

Albaugh also serves as the chairman of the Aerospace Industries Association board of governors. And in that capacity, he said the association will be reaching out to new members of Congress, many of whom were elected with reducing the federal deficit in mind.

“For a new member of Congress I think it’s important to understand what a big part of the economy aerospace is,” Albaugh said, adding that aerospace represents 4 percent of the gross domestic product.

“It’s incumbent on us to make sure there’s an appreciation for what we do,” he said.

And Marion Blakey, president of the association, said that even though many new members of Congress are focused on deficit reduction, they haven’t, for the most part, been tuned into defense or declared their positions on defense spending.

“There really is an opportunity to talk in depth about … what needs to be preserved and what needs to be tightened,” she said. The group was meeting Wednesday with Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

More specifically, one area the association will be focused on is getting the administration to decide what it wants out of its industrial base. And that means pointing out that because of investment decisions at the Pentagon, engineering expertise could be lost.

Right now, no design teams are working on new programs for airplanes, rotorcraft, communications satellites, spacecraft for human exploration, large transport aircraft or small transport aircraft.

He said that Boeing had had difficulties with its 787 Dreamliner commercial aircraft because of atrophy in its design teams. “I fear that we’ll have a similar issue on the defense side,” he said.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47519.html#comments

Likewise, EADS may be ruffled by Obama's pick for chief of staff – Boeing board member Bill Daley. An industry official noted it was Daley's brother who helped bring Boeing to Chicago and said that the choice runs counter to Obama's previous position of choosing people who come in without a question mark.

Mayor Daley's brother... ... but can't say much more due to forum rules on politics.

The french planes have rear-view cameras to monitor the enemy.

No US Tanker has them, the A330MRTT would have been the first, up until Boeing Said the "Next Gen Tanker" would offer it too like the A330.

They extend the baskets out all the way past the tail, then the boomer just watches them come in, and I believe he is on the radio too to talk if need be.

Good afternoon all...

Must not forget these aircraft which were or are in United States Military service:

-DeHavilland of Canada DHC-2....Beaver....American Military U6A &   U6B...won United States battle honours...not sure how many aircraft can claim that...
-DeHavilland of Canada DHC-3...Otter....American Military UC-1 & U-1B
-DeHavilland of Canada DHC-4...Caribou...American Military CV-2 & C-7
-DeHavilland of Canada DHC-6...Twin Otter...American Military UV-18A & UV-18B
-DeHavilland of Canada DHC-7....Dash 7...American Military EO-5C
-DeHavilland of Canada DHC-8....Dash 8...American Military E9A

Just to name a few...

Cheers...Happy Landings...Doug

An EADS North America employee had a file showing Boeing aerial refueling tanker information open for about three minutes, while Boeing never opened a file with EADS data, a Pentagon expert testified Thursday.

The Air Force accidentally sent of information about the Boeing and EADS bids to the other bidders in November. After learning that EADS opened a file and saw one screen of information, the Air Force re-sent that information to both companies in an effort to level the playing field.

The Senate Armed Services committee held a hearing on the incident Thursday. After the hearing, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., announced that she and six other senators, had called for a Pentagon inspector general investigation.

"EADS now has an unfair competitive advantage to adjust its bid to undercut Boeing," Cantwell contended in a news release.

Responding to that call, EADS North America Chairman Ralph Crosby, Jr., said: "We would welcome an investigation by the DoD Inspector General -- if such an investigation does not delay the decision on acquisition of new tankers.

"Scandal and protest have kept this badly needed system out of the hands of our service men and women long enough. We are interested in illuminating unambiguous facts, not in a tactic for delaying the decision process."

All the best,

Steven Shirley, executive director of the Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center, which investigated the incident, said a forensic analysis showed only one page was shown, for about three minutes, and found no evidence refuting EADS' sworn statement that the employee only actually viewed the screen for about 15 seconds.

In written testimony to the committee, EADS North America Chief Executive Officer Sean O'Keefe contradicted Shirley's account somewhat, writing: "The total time that the file was open was less than 15 seconds."

O'Keefe said the person who saw the data was "assigned to administrative duties separate from the KC-45 (tanker) program" until after the end of EADS and Air Force investigations.

"Clearly, it would have been preferable that the data disclosure by the U.S. Air Force had not happened. However, after a full and thorough review of EADS North America's actions, I can tell you with high confidence that our actions following awareness of the disclosure were timely, responsible and appropriate," O'Keefe wrote.

"Unfortunately, it appears that some are attempting to exploit the U.S. Air Force's inadvertent error by speculating on events which are not in evidence," he added. "Most disconcerting is the false assertion that EADS North America held for a month the competitor data incorrectly sent to us. I can assure the Committee that this allegation is simply untrue and is substantively contradicted by the government's investigation and detailed forensic analysis."

Cantwell mentioned the one-month figure earlier this month.

In his testimony, Boeing Defense, Space and Security President and Chief Executive Officer Dennis Muilenburg gently dug into EADS, writing:

    Boeing's behavior in this instance is emblematic of our conduct throughout this competition. We have competed fairly and aggressively. We have not sought extensions of time, we have complied with every deadline, and we have followed the strictures and procedures established by the Air Force acquisition authority to the letter.

EADS did ask for, and get, an extension of the original tanker bid deadline so it could prepare its own bid after former tanker partner Northrop Grumman pulled out of the competition. Here is the full testimony from O'Keefe and Muilenburg.

The EADS employee saw summary information about the Air Force's interim Integrated Fleet Air Refueling Assessment of the Boeing NewGen Tanker, Maj. Gen. Wendy M. Masiello, Air Force program executive officer for combat and mission support, said Thursday. The assessment, known by its acronym, IFARA, looks at the plane's ability to meet requirements in several war-fighting scenarios.

So what difference would this information make? IFARA is the basis for one of two adjustments that the Air Force will make to bid prices before choosing a winner. (The other is for life-cycle costs.)

So having this information about the competitor could help a company adjust its bid to end up with a better final price.

The Air Force argues it made up for any such advantage by ensuring that both companies had the same information. But Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., noted that the information could potentially help one company more than the other.

"The attempt to level the playing field is clear," he said. "Whether it succeeds or not is a different issue."

Arizona Sen. John McCain, the committee's senior Republican, started out by saying the hearing and an associated release of documents about the foul up, should have waited until after the Air Force's selection of a winner -- expected in the next month or two.

The extent to which the incident might have impacted the contest "seems to be to be an issue more appropriately addressed after the competition has run its course and a winner has been announced," he said.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., also questioned the motivation behind the hearing.

"On the eve of this final decision, we've got people with political interests and local interests trying to destabilize the process," he said.

Sessions also noted that either company could protest at any time, but neither has so far. EADS would assemble its tanker in Mobile, Ala.

An eventual Boeing protest may be what Thursday's hearing was about, according to Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss.

"There are some people in this town who believe that the company that they favor may be about to lose a bid again, as they did in 2008, and a foundation is being laid for howls of protest," he said, referring to the Air Force's previous awarding of the tanker contract to a Northrop Grumman-EADS team. Defense Secretary Robert Gates threw out that result and launched a new competition after congressional auditors found serious flaws in the process.

But fellow Republican Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, disagreed, saying: "I think this is something we should be looking at. It's something we should be talking about."

Boeing is building its second 787 Dreamliner assembly line in North Charleston, S.C. Notably, Republican committee member Mark Kirk, from Boeing's headquarters state of Illinois, didn't take part in the hearing.

Graham and Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., also brought up the Air Force's refusal to account in the competition for illegal subsidies that a World Trade Organization panel found EADS subsidiary Airbus to have received, including for the A330 aircraft, which is the basis for EADS North America's KC-45 tanker.

"What if this company was owned by China," she asked. "Would we take that into consideration?"

Invoking criticisms of Democrats from the right, McCaskill said: "I've heard a lot of lectures over the past year about (socialism). ... I don't think the Department of Defense should treat companies equally if one is subsidized by a foreign government."

Wicker noted that a separate panel found that Boeing also received illegal subsidies.

After the hearing, Sens. Cantwell, Graham, Patty Murray, D-Wash, Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Jerry Moran and Pat Roberts, R-Kan., signed onto a letter calling on Pentagon Inspector General Gordon Heddell to investigate the impact of the incident on the fairness and lawfulness of the competition.

"At a minimum, we know that the IFARA score was compromised," they wrote. "That is why it is critical that your investigation determine whether the data breach compromises the IFARA adjustment to price, and more broadly, whether the data breach creates an unfair competitive advantage for the bidder that looked at the other bidder's proprietary data."

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/237182.asp

Posted by Kyung M. Song

WASHINGTON -- When the U.S. Air Force at last reveals the winner of a $40 billion contract for aerial refueling tankers, it won't merely mark a turning point in one of the more tortuous chapters in Pentagon procurement history.

It also would help determine the fate of the American economy, its industrial base and national security.

That's according to a quintet of senators from three states who are pushing hard for a victory by Boeing.

During a press conference at the U.S. Capitol on Thursday, Sen. Patty Murray led an argument by a bipartisan group of lawmakers that awarding the tanker deal to the European parent of Airbus would deprive Americans of much-needed jobs.

Boeing has claimed that if the tankers are built with a military version of its 767 jetliner, it would support 50,000 U.S. jobs, including 11,000 in Washington state. Airbus parent EADS counters that a win for the larger Airbus A330 tanker would support 48,000 American jobs. Airbus plans to assemble the tankers in Mobile, Ala., with component parts made in Europe.

"If we are going to win the future, we are going to need to win this contract," Murray said. "We are doing this to remind the administration and the country what's at stake."

Underscoring that message, the press conference room was festooned with signs proclaiming "American jobs on the line" and "Support American aerospace."

Also appearing at the event were Sens. Maria Cantwell of Washington and Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran, both Republicans of Kansas, a major Boeing manufacturing center. A fifth senator, Debbie Stabenow, is from Michigan, where Boeing currently employs 22 people but hopes to gain 450 more jobs with a tanker contract.

The Air Force has been trying for a decade to replace its aging KC-135 refueling aircraft. Its 2001 decision to lease 100 tankers from Boeing was scotched after revelations that the company's chief financial officer offered jobs to a Pentagon acquisitions officer and her family. A subsequent tanker award to Northrop-EADS was successfully challenged by Boeing on grounds that the competition was flawed.

Further roiling the process, the World Trade Organization has recently ruled that Airbus -- and to a lesser degree, Boeing -- has benefited from billions of dollars in illegal government subsidies. Boeing partisans on Capitol Hill have argued for penalizing EADS, something the Pentagon has refused repeatedly.

The decision for this third round is expected to hinge on price. Aerospace analysts have speculated that EADS likely would prevail on that score. The Air Force is expected to name the winner shortly.

Asked if all the political interference might further delay the Air Force from upgrading its equipment, Moran said that's why the Pentagon must ensure that its latest choice of a winner "has to be absolutely, above-board correct."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2014254392_murraycantwel...

Boeing will build the NewGen Tanker with a low-risk approach. It will use a trained and experienced U.S..

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.

Feb 25, 2011

By Graham Warwick graham_warwick@aviationweek.com
Washington

Overturning its previous selection, the U.S. Air Force has selected Boeing to supply its KC-X replacement aerial-refueling tanker. The company has been awarded a $3.5 billion fixed-price incentive contract for development and delivery of the first 18 of a planned 179 767-based NewGen tankers to replace U.S. Air Force Boeing KC-135s.

EADS North America, with Northrop Grumman as prime contractor, won the first KC-X competition in February 2008 with the KC-45A, based on the Airbus A330-200 and similar to the KC-30 multi-role tanker/transport under development for Australia. The program was halted in September 2008 after a Boeing contract protest was upheld.

The Air Force restarted the KC-X competition in July 2010, issuing a new request for proposals (RFP) that simplified the requirements, clarified the selection criteria and reduced the financial risks to the winner. The changes were made in a bid to prevent the protests that derailed the first competition.

Boeing revised its approach after losing the first competition, dropping plans to develop an aircraft combining elements of several different 767 models and basing its “NewGen” tanker bid on a 767-200 equipped with an upgraded KC-10 refueling boom and 787 cockpit displays. The company said its price would be lower the second time around.

EADS North America stayed with its winning KC-45 design, but entered the new competition as prime contractor after Northrop withdrew from the role in March 2010, arguing the revised RFP “clearly favored a smaller tanker.” EADS’s decision to lead the bid itself likely allowed the company to reduce its proposal price.

The Air Force substantially revamped its source selection process after the Government Accountability Office (GAO) upheld Boeing’s protest over losing the 2008 competition to Northrop Grumman and EADS. The GAO ruled the Air Force did not properly assess the relative technical and operational merits of the rival tankers.

The new RFP simplified the specification to 372 mandatory pass/fail requirements the proposals had to meet to be considered. Proposed prices were then adjusted by the Pentagon based on assessments of operational effectiveness and ownership cost. Only if the resulting total evaluated prices were within 1% of each other would the Pentagon then consider each proposal’s ability to provide additional capabilities.

A long-shot bid from U.S. Aerospace, offering a variant of the Ukrainian Antonov An-70, was rejected after it missed the deadline to submit a proposal. The company’s protest was dismissed by the GAO in November 2010.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awx/2011/02/24/awx_02_2...

Mar 1, 2011

By Amy Butler

The question sweeping the U.S. defense establishment is: How low did Boeing go?

Nearly three years after the U.S. Air Force’s selection of a Northrop Grumman/EADS A330-based tanker was found by government auditors to be flawed, the service has now chosen a Boeing design to replace its aging KC-135 refuelers. The Air Force based its selection largely on life-cycle price, and Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn says: “Boeing was a clear winner.”

Three years ago, Boeing’s price was roughly $8 million more per aircraft than EADS’s and its development price was higher, according to sources close to the duel. Right up until the source selection announcement last week, many defense analysts suggested EADS would underbid Boeing in order to establish a final assembly facility for Airbus aircraft in the U.S.

“It is very fortunate for Boeing that they got a second chance because their first bid was not competitive,” according to one defense industry analyst. John Young, the Pentagon procurement chief during the last source selection, says, “The delay [in fielding the aircraft] is unfortunate and it clearly led both teams to sharpen their pencils.”

The Air Force’s decision to select Boeing will likely sidestep a protracted debate with Congress; Boeing supporters on Capitol Hill were poised to fight on the company’s behalf, further delaying USAF’s ability to field new tankers. Boeing’s lobby in Congress is far more substantial than EADS’s, which mainly relied on lawmakers from Alabama, where the A330 was to be built, for its political influence.

Dennis Muilenburg, president of Boeing Defense Space and Security, says this KC-X proposal had a “one Boeing” tactic, including a marriage of its culturally diverse defense and commercial businesses. “We worked this as one integrated Boeing company,” he says, adding that this approach drove efficiencies and value to for the most recent proposal.

During the 2008 competition, Boeing was criticized for seeking too much profit, thus allowing for a then-Northrop Grumman/EADS team to underbid. Also, Boeing Commercial Airplanes was seen as uncooperative with government cost estimators who wanted pricing details on the 767 platform.

Boeing protested, leading government auditors to find flaws in the source selection. During this period, company officials were aggressive, publicly taking their top customer to task. Internally, however, Boeing did some soul-searching. “That was always the fear—that [EADS] could underbid again,” says one former Boeing official. “This is the last major USAF acquisition program in the foreseeable future,” and this tanker work was viewed by some in the company as a must win. 

The Pentagon’s decision—if it withstands a possible protest from EADS—could repair the chasm in the Boeing/Air Force relationship. It also shores up not only decades of business with its top defense customer as military budgets begin to flatten but also steady work for the waning 767 production line. Perhaps more critical to the commercial side of Boeing, the win stunts its European commercial rival’s efforts to establish a stateside manufacturing facility for airliners.

A win for either company would have been considered strategic—EADS was hoping to substantially boost its U.S. revenue and, perhaps more critical for the future of its commercial business, was its plan to build an A330 final assembly facility in Mobile, Ala. Since establishing its North American arm in 2003, EADS has had a goal of aggressively growing its U.S. business, and winning KC-X was the largest single step in that strategy. EADS is likely to pursue other Pentagon business, including some smaller helicopter programs, but nothing that would bring with it the scale and prestige of U.S. livery on an A330-based tanker. 

EADS North America officials were due receive a debriefing Feb. 28on the loss. Board Chairman Ralph Crosby said his company would not protest the decision unless there is an obvious error on the part of Air Force acquisition. EADS North America officials “expressed disappointment and concern” about the decision. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz says he hopes this decision means people will “stop talking about it” and get on with fielding a tanker on schedule. The original Boeing lease—offered in 2002—called for tankers to be delivered in 2006. Investigations into the deal found a bloated price, a situation that kicked off the more recent competitions for a supplier.

A loss for Boeing would have been a blow, ending its five-decade monopoly on the U.S. refueling business as the Air Force’s interest in C-17s continues to be nonexistent. Boeing’s other defense hurdles include a downturn in missile defense opportunities and a recent guided weapon loss to Raytheon.

Pressure is now likely to mount for EADS North America to consider a U.S. acquisition to expand its stateside market share. However, uncertainty over the company’s shareholding structure and an anticipated management shuffle next year could further hinder efforts to execute its U.S. expansion anytime soon.

Though EADS has beat Boeing in previous competitions in Australia, Saudi Arabia, the U.K. and the United Arab Emirates, other countries may now turn away from the A330-based option in favor of the 767 tanker, now called the KC-46A, to achieve commonality with the U.S. fleet.

And, with 767 business established for at least 13 lots through the U.S. buy, the platform, though older than its A330 rival, could continue to challenge Airbus in the freighter market.

Boeing’s $3.5 billion contract covers the development of the system, and purchase of 18 aircraft (including those for test purposes), which will be fielded by 2017. The buy of 179 aircraft is estimated at up to $30 billion, Lynn says. Ashton Carter, the Pentagon procurement chief, says the contract will be signed soon, allowing work to begin smartly. If a protest is launched, a stop-work order will likely be issued immediately in accordance with procurement rules.

The development contract is fixed-price, a shift from the previous competition. However the process does carry risk. Production and flight-testing will be concurrent, says Jean Chamberlin, vice president of Boeing’s tanker program; if technical problems arise in flight-test, fixes may have to be retrofitted onto the aircraft. Although a different design, Boeing experienced substantial flight-test problems with its Italian 767-based tanker.

Production is slated to start in 2015, two years ahead of the first delivery. Initial flight test is also slated for 2015, Chamberlin says. The Pentagon has restructured the Joint Strike Fighter program twice in as many years to reduce concurrency. Though this stealthy fighter is more complex than a modified 767, lessons from JSF and many past programs have pointed to the benefits of discovering flaws in flight-test prior to production.

At the suggestion that Boeing bought into the program, risking its ability to make profit, Muilenburg said “We submitted an aggressive but responsible bid.”

If the decision manages to withstand scrutiny, and neither Congress or the protest reveal problems in the procurement process, this will be a pivotal step forward for an Air Force procurement corps beleaguered by missteps. They began, largely, with the Air Force/Boeing plan nearly 10 years ago to lease 767-based tankers, and continued with a problem in a competition to buy combat search-and-rescue helicopters among others. Perhaps the KC-X decision could be a fitting end to a decade of paralysis for Air Force weapons buyers.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awst/2011/02/28/AW_02_2...

Quote:


They keep on referring to this "50 year monopoly" Boeing has had in producing tankers for the USAF (the above article refers to the US refuelling business, which is even more tenuous - KC-130 etc...). Am I missing something, or did they not lose the competition eventually won by the USAF's most versatile tanker, the KC-10 (apparently with a 747 based design)!

Yeah, ok, in course Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas, but to say they've had a 50 year monopoly is pushing the truth boat out a bit far!

Yes they did loose out to the DC-10 with the KC-747, but as far as Boeing History in the tanker it goes with:
KB-29(late 40's),KB-50(1947), KC-97(1950), KC-135(1954-1965), KC-33(747 in 70's), KC-767(2005)

Mar 4, 2011

By Amy Butler abutler@aviationweek.com

The decision by EADS North America not to protest its loss in the $35 billion U.S. Air Force KC-135 replacement refueling tanker contract competition is largely being based on its adjusted price, which came in a full 10% above that of rival Boeing, according to senior company officials.

EADS North America Chairman Ralph Crosby says the loss is a “dissatisfying outcome,” to a long competitive process. But ultimately the Air Force ran the KC-X competition “in accordance with all of the ground rules” and was “scrupulous” in detailing the factors leading to the decision.

The company spent roughly $45 million competing for this last round of the KC-X duel. EADS had won the contract in 2008 with then-prime contractor Northrop Grumman, but that source selection was scrapped after government auditors turned up procurement irregularities following a Boeing protest.

The Pentagon announced Boeing’s KC-46A won the most recent long-running duel on Feb. 24. EADS received debriefings Feb. 28-March 1. The company had until March 7 to protest its loss to the Government Accountability Office.

Boeing bid $20.6 billion versus the EADS price of $22.6 billion, according to data provided by the Air Force in those debriefings, says Crosby. These are the prices for developing and building 179 KC-135 replacements, including adjustments made by the Air Force in accordance with source-selection rules. The remainder of the $35 billion total contract value includes operational and maintenance expenses over the anticipated 40-year life expectancy of the tankers.

According to Crosby, EADS has derived some estimates of the Boeing offer, which have not yet been confirmed by the Air Force or Boeing. They include a $500 million adjustment in favor of Boeing for the fuel-usage advantage of the 767-based design. The Air Force also calculated a $300 million advantage to Boeing for military construction costs, Crosby says.

The service estimated an advantage for EADS worth $800 million for the A330-based tanker’s performance in various warfighting scenarios included in the Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment modeling tool.

Though willing to congratulate Boeing on its win, Crosby questions Boeing’s ability to deliver on its promises under the terms of the fixed-price contract.

Jean Chamberlain, a senior tanker official for Boeing, last week acknowledged “concurrency” in its development program and production. First flight for the KC-46A is slated for 2015 with 18 aircraft delivered by 2017.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awx/2011/03/04/awx_03_0...

The U.S. Air Force is expecting to pay the largest amount allowable under the KC-46A contract with Boeing to develop a KC-135 refueler replacement, with Boeing picking up the rest of the tab.

Two months after Boeing won the contract over rival EADS, which proposed an Airbus A330-based design, the Air Force got news that it would need to pay an additional $500 million to develop the 767-based tanker and deliver the first 18 aircraft.

The target cost agreed upon in February for the fixed-price, incentive-fee development was $4.4 billion, according to Air Force officials. However, “Boeing revealed, post-contract award on 25 April 2011, that during source selection it proposed a ceiling price for the [engineering and manufacturing development] contract that is less than its actual projected cost to execute the contract,” says Lt. Col. Jack Miller, an Air Force spokesman, in a statement. “Boeing is liable for all cost above the $4.9 billion contract ceiling.”

Bloomberg broke the news last week that Boeing may have to pay $300 million over the contract ceiling (totaling $5.2 billion) to develop the KC-46A. The company chose a strategy of submitting a low bid – risking a deficit in development — to make up for the loss in projected sales.

The Air Force intends to buy 179 KC-46A tankers, and there are international opportunities. “We expect to make money on the KC-46 tanker program,” says Bill Barksdale, a Boeing spokesman, in a statement. “The KC-46 contract opens additional opportunities, including potential U.S. and international tanker sales and related services for decades to come.” Boeing has not yet been awarded a KC-46 production contract.

Barksdale and Miller both decline to identify the projected amount of the KC-46A development estimate at completion for the development program. Barksdale also declines to say how many of the tankers must be produced for the company to break even. Barksdale says the Boeing KC-46 bid was “aggressive but responsible.” He declined to say when the company realized its actual development cost would exceed the contract ceiling.

Boeing’s next earnings call with investors is July 27, and this may be when the company discusses how it will take a charge or charges for the projected overrun. So far, Boeing’s stock price has not indicated concern from investors.

“It is one program. It is a bit of a surprise, clearly, but in the broader context of everything else going on with the company and the stock, it doesn’t have the weight or bearing” to influence its price, says Byron Callan of Capital Alpha Partners.

One Air Force official says that if Boeing’s out-of-pocket cost is $300 million, “it may be the best $300 million Boeing spends all year” because it maintained the company’s grip on a decades-old refueler business in the U.S. and kept Airbus from establishing a stateside facility to build A330s.

Barksdale notes that the company is on schedule with the KC-46A development work. Few details about the schedule have been released, though, except for the requirement to deliver the first 18 aircraft in the final production configuration by the fourth quarter of fiscal 2017.

Boeing’s low-ball strategy does not violate acquisition law or regulations, Miller says. “There is no legal barrier that prohibits an offer or from pursuing a below-cost proposal strategy,” he says.

Boeing’s bid price was 10% below that of EADS’s, according to company officials after their loss. If the $300 million projected cost to Boeing is true, this would put the price about 4% below that of its rival.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2011/06/29/01.xml&h...;  

Aug 29, 2011

By Amy Butler

The U.S. Air Force has completed an interim baseline review (IBR) for the KC-46A aerial refueler, clearing the first major schedule milestone for the program.

The review lasted weeks and concluded Aug. 24, according to Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force spokeswoman. “IBRs are intended to provide a mutual understanding of risks inherent in contractors’ performance plans and underlying management control systems,” she says. An IBR is a formal review conducted directly by the government in cooperation with the contractor team. These reviews also outline what resources are needed to achieve program goals.

The company won the work Feb. 24 under a fixed-price contract. Because of the contract’s aggressive schedule for deliveries by 2017 and the fixed-price development, many in industry are closely watching progress. The IBR was conducted in accordance with the program schedule, which called for the review to be complete within seven months of contract award.

Cassidy says the IBR was “successful,” but service procurement officials declined to provide detail on the outcome of the review. Boeing deferred questions on the IBR to the Air Force.

A critical design review is slated for 31 months after contract award, or September 2013, and the first 18 KC-46As are due for delivery in 2017.

Boeing is expected to exceed its contract ceiling of $4.9 billion; the company is liable for any costs beyond that ceiling (Aerospace DAILY, July 28). The Air Force plans to buy 179 KC-46As to begin replacing the aging KC-135 fleet. 

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2011/08/29/01.xml&h...

Boeing to close historic Wichita plant by end of 2013

WICHITA – Boeing, for decades the brand that helped support Wichita's claim as the aviation capital of the world, announced Wednesday it will shut down facilities in the city by the end of 2013 and send work to plants in three other states as it deals with defense spending cutbacks.

The closure will cost more than 2,160 workers their jobs and end the firm's presence in an area, where it has been a major employer for generations.

The decision was not a surprise because Boeing (BA) said in November that it was looking at closing the Wichita plant. But it still drew an angry response from Kansas lawmakers who helped Boeing land a lucrative Air Force refueling tanker project in February and had expected thousands of jobs to come to Wichita with it. Instead, the work will go to Boeing's facilities near Seattle and Oklahoma City.

"Boeing's announcement is that things have changed," U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran said. "Well, the only thing that really has changed in my mind in the last year is Boeing now has the contract. When they made the commitments, they didn't."

Boeing, a major defense contractor, began looking at closing the plant at the same time the Pentagon was trying to prevent $500 billion in automatic, across-the-board defense budget cuts over 10 years in the wake of a failure by a bipartisan congressional supercommittee to agree on $1.2 trillion or more in deficit reductions.

Wichita officials had hoped the number of jobs at the facility would grow after Boeing won the contract worth at least $35 billion to build 179 Air Force refueling tankers. Modification work on the planes was expected to generate 7,500 direct and indirect jobs with a total economic impact of nearly $390 million.

Boeing said 24 Kansas-based suppliers for the refueling tanker project will still provide parts as planned. On Wednesday, Boeing shares closed up 11 cents to $74.33.

"In this time of defense budget reductions, as well as shifting customer priorities, Boeing has decided to close its operations in Wichita to reduce costs, increase efficiencies and drive competitiveness," Mark Bass, vice president and general manager for the Boeing Defense, Space & Security facility in Wichita, said in a statement.

The first layoffs in Wichita are expected in the third quarter of 2012. While the Seattle area will build the tanker, engineering and modification work on it will move to Oklahoma City and future aircraft maintenance, modification and support will go to San Antonio, Tex.

Oklahoma will get about 800 jobs and San Antonio will gain 300 to 400 jobs, Bass said. The company will move 200 tanker jobs to its plant in Washington, while moving 100 support jobs, primarily engineering, now in Washington to Oklahoma City in the shuffle.

Boeing said it will continue to have a significant impact on the Kansas economy and its aerospace industry. The Chicago-based company spent more than $3.2 billion with 475 Kansas suppliers last year. Kansas is the fourth-largest state in its supplier network, it said.

But that wasn't enough for lawmakers like U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts, who said Boeing had promised as recently as February to remain in Wichita if it landed the tanker contract. Roberts and others urged the company to reconsider.

"Today's announcement by Boeing's leadership is hugely disappointing to me, but more importantly to the thousands of workers whose livelihoods are affected by this decision," Roberts said.

Moran called Boeing's move "a blow to our mental health as well as our pocketbooks." Kansas officials are still willing to do what it takes to keep the Boeing plant open, but "it's difficult to negotiate with someone who hasn't kept their word," he said.

Gov. Sam Brownback promised Kansas will pursue opportunities in commercial aircraft manufacturing. Aircraft makers like Cessna Aircraft Co., Hawker Beechcraft and Bombardier LearJet still have plants in Wichita, which Brownback said remains "the best place in the world to build airplanes."

Boeing has had a facility in Wichita since it bought the Stearman Aircraft Co. in 1929.

Employment at the plant peaked during World War II as the company churned out four bombers a day. Its 40,000 workers included President Barack Obama's beloved grandmother Madelyn Dunham, known as "Toot," who did her part for the war effort by working the night shift as a supervisor on the B-29 bomber assembly line.

The company remained Wichita's largest employer for decades after the war.

It still had about 15,000 workers in the city in 2005, when it spun off its commercial aircraft operations in Kansas and Oklahoma. After the divestiture, Boeing kept 4,500 workers for its defense work in Wichita, but layoffs have since slashed that number.

Even with the defense plant's closure, Boeing will have an economic impact in Wichita. Spirit AeroSystems, which took over Boeing's commercial aircraft operations, builds parts for the company.

"But it would be different to a certain extent because of the fact that, you know, it is kind of like family that you actually have and a member of the family is moving away," said Mayor Carl Brewer, who once worked for Boeing himself. "So there is a lot of emotional and economic attachment tied to this."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/manufacturing/story/2012-01-04/boeing-p...

Thursday, February 24, 2011......... Release from Gov. Brownback:

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback issued the following statement after the U.S. Air Force announced today that it will award its $35 billion contract to build a new fleet of military air tankers to Boeing Company.

“I have been waiting a decade to say this – Congratulations Boeing workers! This is a great day for the company, its employees as well as for our country’s economy and for Kansas. The U.S. Air Force’s decision to award its $35 billion contract to Boeing is the type of economic growth government can provide to get the U.S. and our state back on the road to economic recovery with good jobs.

I commend the Air Force for keeping the production of this vital program in the United States. It ensures the world’s newest and most capable tanker will be built by Americans for our American warfighters. I am very pleased the tankers will be built here in Kansas by the highly skilled and motivated Wichita area workforce. This is great news for American jobs and for American security.”

Boeing announced last spring Kansas would benefit from approximately 7,500 jobs and an estimated $388 million in annual economic impact if the Boeing NewGen Tanker was selected as the U.S. Air Force's next aerial refueling aircraft

.......
http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/Tanker_Decision_Expected_Thursday_116758334.h...

Boeing Marks 1st Anniversary of KC-46A Tanker Contract Award

The Boeing [NYSE: BA] KC-46 Tanker program today marked the first anniversary of receiving a U.S. Air Force contract to build the next-generation aerial refueling tanker, the KC-46A.  Over the past year, the program has completed key milestones in support of the design and development phase on or ahead of schedule, and is now preparing for a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) in March.

“The KC-46 program is on a good path.  Boeing’s performance thus far has been solid,” said Maj. Gen. Chris Bogdan, KC-46 Program Executive Officer, U.S. Air Force. “Our commitment is to deliver the KC-46A to the nation’s warfighters, on schedule and ready to go to war on Day One, as the world’s most advanced tanker. I’m pleased to report that Boeing is meeting its commitments.”

Since receiving the contract on Feb. 24, 2011, the Boeing KC-46 team has completed several major milestones, including a System Requirements Review, Integrated Baseline Review, 767-2C PDR, and Firm Configuration Reviews for the 767-2C and the KC-46A Tanker.

“I’m very proud of our joint team,” said Maureen Dougherty, Boeing KC-46 Tanker vice president and program manager. “We’re drawing on the best of Boeing’s industry-leading commercial airplane and defense expertise as we design and develop the KC-46A, which is a next-generation derivative aircraft. We remain on plan to deliver the first 18 combat-ready tankers by 2017.”

The PDR, which will ensure that Boeing’s design meets system requirements, will be followed by a Critical Design Review (CDR) in the third quarter of 2013. The CDR determines that the design of the KC-46A is mature and ready to proceed to the manufacturing phase of the program.

Boeing will build 179 next-generation aerial refueling tanker aircraft that will begin to replace the Air Force’s fleet of 416 KC-135 tankers. Based on the proven Boeing 767 commercial airplane, the KC-46A tanker is a widebody, multi-mission aircraft updated with the latest and most advanced technology to meet the demanding mission requirements of the future, including a digital flight deck featuring Boeing 787 Dreamliner electronic displays and a flight control design philosophy that places aircrews in command to maximize combat maneuverability. The KC-46A also features a modernized KC-10 boom with a fly-by-wire control system, and a refueling envelope and fuel offload rate that is greater than the KC-135 it will replace.   

http://www.aviationnews.eu/2012/02/24/boeing-marks-1st-anniversary-of-kc-46a-tan...