Log in

View Full Version : Boeing Receives U.S. Air Force Contract to Build Next-Generation Refueling Tanker


Superstreet
02-25-2011, 7:17am
This is huge for Boeing,the nation and its suppliers!


United States Tanker (http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/splash/Announcement)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v288/Superstreet/TankerF-18s.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v288/Superstreet/Tanker-1.jpg


ST. LOUIS, Feb. 24, 2011 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] has received a contract from the U.S. Air Force to build the next-generation aerial refueling tanker aircraft that will replace 179 of the service’s 400 KC-135 tankers.

The contract calls for Boeing to design, develop, manufacture and deliver 18 initial combat-ready tankers by 2017.

"We're honored to be given the opportunity to build the Air Force's next tanker and provide a vital capability to the men and women of our armed forces," said Jim McNerney, Boeing chairman, president and CEO. "Our team is ready now to apply our 60 years of tanker experience to develop and build an airplane that will serve the nation for decades to come."

In selecting the Boeing NewGen Tanker after a lengthy and rigorous proposal process, the Air Force has chosen an American-built, multi-mission tanker that is based on the proven Boeing 767 commercial airplane and meets all requirements at the lowest risk for the warfighter and the best value for taxpayers. The Boeing proposal was created by an integrated "One Boeing" team from various sites across the company, including employees from the Commercial Airplanes; Defense, Space & Security; and Engineering, Operations & Technology organizations.

"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."

The KC-46A tankers will be built using a low-risk approach to manufacturing by a trained and experienced U.S. work force at existing Boeing facilities. The KC-46A tanker also will fuel the economy as it supports approximately 50,000 total U.S. jobs with Boeing and more than 800 suppliers in more than 40 states.

"Boeing has always been committed to the integrity of the competitive process, and the men and women across our Boeing commercial and defense teams and our entire supplier network are ready to extend that commitment to delivering these tankers on time and on budget," said Jim Albaugh, president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes.

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 and capable of meeting or exceeding the Air Force's needs for transport of fuel, cargo, passengers and patients. It includes state-of-the-art systems 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 rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability. The NewGen Tanker also features an advanced KC-10 boom with an expanded refueling envelope, increased fuel offload rate and fly-by-wire control system.

To learn more about the KC-46A Tanker, visit United States Tanker (http://www.UnitedStatesTanker.com).

A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is one of the world's largest defense, space and security businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world's largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is a $32 billion business with 66,000 employees worldwide. Follow us on Twitter: @BoeingDefense.

dwjz06
02-25-2011, 7:42am
:hurray::hurray::cheers:

joecaver
02-25-2011, 7:51am
I guess the next round of law suits can start now. I hope they can get this program started soon. we need new tankers in a bad way.

vetteman9368
02-25-2011, 8:12am
I guess the next round of law suits can start now. I hope they can get this program started soon. we need new tankers in a bad way.

and EADS is sitting on G waiting on O to build them in Mobile, AL. And its a more capable aircraft, built on a newer airframe platform. On paper there is no good reason Boeing should have received this contract. All of the experts who had reviewed the bid gave the nod to EADS. Something is fishy here.

67 327/400
02-25-2011, 8:35am
There should have never had been a question, as to who will build our Military aircraft.

joecaver
02-25-2011, 8:57am
There should have never had been a question, as to who will build our Military aircraft.

I agree with y... oops, damn, I got distracted by your avatar. That is one fine azz.

Superstreet
02-25-2011, 9:24am
and EADS is sitting on G waiting on O to build them in Mobile, AL. And its a more capable aircraft, built on a newer airframe platform. On paper there is no good reason Boeing should have received this contract. All of the experts who had reviewed the bid gave the nod to EADS. Something is fishy here.

Serious? The 767 is on a proven airframe,more fuel efficient,can land on more airfields without upgrades or modifications to the airfields,it can offload significantly more fuel for refueling,etc......

Besides,construction of these tankers will support tens of thousands of U.S. jobs. Boeing has more than 50 years of experience designing and building tankers. Why would you want a military contract from a foreign company to build air refueling tankers for our military?

Omega Man
02-25-2011, 9:30am
It was the 3rd round of bids that Boeing finally one. They lost the first and second rounds, and those planes were going to be built by Americans also.

vetteman9368
02-25-2011, 11:13am
It was the 3rd round of bids that Boeing finally one. They lost the first and second rounds, and those planes were going to be built by Americans also.

Yep, a couple of thousand Americans right here in Mobile, AL. This area needed something positive after the recession and oil spills. Of course if I worked for Boeing, I'd have quit when Obama started mettling in things.

thkauffman
02-25-2011, 11:14am
It's good for my company.

vetteman9368
02-25-2011, 12:16pm
It was the 3rd round of bids that Boeing finally one. They lost the first and second rounds, and those planes were going to be built by Americans also.

Yep, a couple of thousand Americans right here in Mobile, AL. This area needed something positive after the recession and oil spills. Of course if I worked for Boeing, I'd have quit when Obama started mettling in things.

Iron Chef
02-25-2011, 12:19pm
Hmmmmm...looks like I may just want to go back to work soon. :D

Superstreet
02-25-2011, 12:19pm
Hmmmmm...looks like I may just want to go back to work soon. :D

:waiting: :D

73sbVert
02-25-2011, 12:26pm
EADS wasn't really able to 'make' it cheaper, but they were able to underbid Boeing because Airbus is supported by the French gov't, and didn't require a certain profit margin to be met like Boeing stockholders expect.

Scissors
02-25-2011, 12:32pm
So, basically, we're redistributing money from the rest of the country to where these will be built. :cool:

ptindall
02-25-2011, 12:48pm
I don't know anything about which plane was the right choice, but creating jobs and stimulating economy should be left entirely out of the discussion. It all comes from tax payer money. No wealth is generated, it's only transferred. The only time we should hear talk about creating jobs and stimulating the economy is when we are talking about things that actually generate wealth.

Scissors
02-25-2011, 12:52pm
I don't know anything about which plane was the right choice, but creating jobs and stimulating economy should be left entirely out of the discussion. It all comes from tax payer money. No wealth is generated, it's only transferred. The only time we should hear talk about creating jobs and stimulating the economy is when we are talking about things that actually generate wealth.

Indeed.

All government programs generate jobs for somebody. Hell, we're giving GM money and that's keeping American jobs, so how is this better (as far as the money-for-jobs argument is concerned)?

Was the previous design a failure? Were they getting shot down? Were we unable to compete with some enemy because of them?

Mike Mercury
02-25-2011, 1:05pm
In the NewGen Tanker, the pilot always has final control over the aircraft. Unlike the Airbus A330, whose computer laws limit the aircraft’s bank angles, pitch angles, and roll rate, the 767-based NewGen Tanker allows the pilot access to the full flight envelope.

interesting...

ptindall
02-25-2011, 1:20pm
Was the previous design a failure? Were they getting shot down? Were we unable to compete with some enemy because of them?

Even if the answer to all of those is no, there could still be a good reason to build these new ones. Lower maintenance costs, greater flight readiness, greater fuel capacity, higher speed, etc. I imagine having a larger fuel capacity would be a huge benefit and could make the lagistics of the airforce much easier and cheaper.

Iron Chef
02-25-2011, 1:44pm
Was the previous design a failure? Were they getting shot down? Were we unable to compete with some enemy because of them?

The answer is no to all three questions, however it's not that simple:

The current fleet of tankers is primarily comprised of the KC-135 (with some KC-10's and some KC-130's). KC-135's are Boeing 707 aircraft which have been in the air since the late 1950's. There's a question of airframe integrity for an aircraft with so many flying hours. There are also maintenance issues and costs for upgrading and maintaining such old aircraft.

I won't argue the economics, but from a technical standpoint, it's well past time for a new tanker.

dwjz06
02-25-2011, 2:03pm
The answer is no to all three questions, however it's not that simple:

The current fleet of tankers is primarily comprised of the KC-135 (with some KC-10's and some KC-130's). KC-135's are Boeing 707 aircraft which have been in the air since the late 1950's. There's a question of airframe integrity for an aircraft with so many flying hours. There are also maintenance issues and costs for upgrading and maintaining such old aircraft.

I won't argue the economics, but from a technical standpoint, it's well past time for a new tanker.:iagree::cheers:

Scissors
02-25-2011, 2:08pm
The answer is no to all three questions, however it's not that simple:

The current fleet of tankers is primarily comprised of the KC-135 (with some KC-10's and some KC-130's). KC-135's are Boeing 707 aircraft which have been in the air since the late 1950's. There's a question of airframe integrity for an aircraft with so many flying hours. There are also maintenance issues and costs for upgrading and maintaining such old aircraft.

I won't argue the economics, but from a technical standpoint, it's well past time for a new tanker.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating for keeping airframes in service which shouldn't be. But somehow I bet that this entire process is going to result in planes which are much more expensive in total per unit than simply building more of the already-known and tested design, which could receive many of the upgrades.

But I'm speaking from experience in federal contracting for goods other than planes. Maybe planes are different, but I'm a skeptic. :sadangel:

J S Machine
02-25-2011, 4:33pm
This is cool Darrin. Glad to hear yall got this.

NB2K
02-25-2011, 4:34pm
Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating for keeping airframes in service which shouldn't be. But somehow I bet that this entire process is going to result in planes which are much more expensive in total per unit than simply building more of the already-known and tested design, which could receive many of the upgrades.

But I'm speaking from experience in federal contracting for goods other than planes. Maybe planes are different, but I'm a skeptic. :sadangel:

You can keep upgrading, painting, and retro-fitting all you want, but it's still a design from the late 40s/early 50s. I doubt you could even build that old design in a cost-effective manner.

Are they going to cost more per unit than the old ones? Well yeah, I guess so, but what item doesn't that's 50 years newer?

As for the procurement itself, what a mess that was. But then it's an AF procurement so that's SOP.

The last AF procurement that I protested I won easily.

Gozar
02-25-2011, 4:35pm
The A330 is a highly automated platform with an unproven history.

The 767 platform is highly proven which also allows more pilot decisions.

I think it is a better choice with my limited knowledge.

73sbVert
02-25-2011, 7:59pm
The A330 is a highly automated platform with an unproven history.

The 767 platform is highly proven which also allows more pilot decisions.

I think it is a better choice with my limited knowledge.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

polarbear
02-25-2011, 8:37pm
:hurray::hurray::cheers:
:iagree: And the Pacific Northwest thanks them. About 15000 of those jobs will be local.

ChasC5
02-25-2011, 8:47pm
:iagree: And the Pacific Northwest thanks them. About 15000 of those jobs will be local.

Jobs are a good thing. :cheers:

73sbVert
02-25-2011, 9:05pm
:iagree: And the Pacific Northwest thanks them. About 15000 of those jobs will be local.

I give SPEEA or the machinist unions about 6 mos into the contract before they start pulling their shit again.

:(

Gozar
02-25-2011, 10:16pm
One thing people need to understand. When Boeing wins a contract like this the engineering is almost all done right in the US. That means more jobs than just assembly workers. If EADS would have won the contract guess where all the engineering would have been done?

By Boeing winning there is a bigger win for the USA despite the punch in the nutz to the golf coast.

polarbear
02-25-2011, 10:26pm
The A330 is a highly automated platform with an unproven history.

The 767 platform is highly proven which also allows more pilot decisions.

I think it is a better choice with my limited knowledge.

I know one thing for damned sure. From a Boeing Engineer buddy of mine, about five or six years ago. He said "Remember this, the words 'European' and 'electronics' should never appear in the same sentance together." He was referring to Airbus's then new fly-by-wire systems.

Iron Chef
02-25-2011, 11:18pm
Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating for keeping airframes in service which shouldn't be. But somehow I bet that this entire process is going to result in planes which are much more expensive in total per unit than simply building more of the already-known and tested design, which could receive many of the upgrades.

But I'm speaking from experience in federal contracting for goods other than planes. Maybe planes are different, but I'm a skeptic. :sadangel:

Under normal circumstances you'd be right. Unfortunately, the plane they are currently using...the 707...is so old that it would cost a bloody fortune for a rework/redesign. But since they are using a 767, the airframe is already proven, parts are plentiful and the technology is, for the most part present-day.

Y2Kvert4me
02-25-2011, 11:27pm
The 767 being a widebody would seem particularly advantageous for tanker purposes.


:cheers: